Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCCL 37/2005 and
HCCL 40/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMMERCIAL ACTION NOS. 37 AND 40 OF 2005

-------------------------

BETWEEN

	AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED	Plaintiffs
	(IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION)
	and others
	and
	HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER	1^st Defendant
	THE GRANDE HOLDINGS LIMITED and others	2^nd Defendant

-------------------------

Before: Hon Stone J in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions:

20 July 2009 (for plaintiff);
20 July 2009 (for defendant)

Date of Handing Down Decision: 5 August 2009

---------------------------------

DECISION ON COSTS

---------------------------------

Reservation of Costs: Order dated 1 June 2009

1.By paragraphs 9 and 11 of the Order of this court dated 1 June 2009, this court ordered that the costs of the plaintiffs’ summonses dated 17 March 2009 (‘the interrogation summons’) and 27 April 2009 (‘the specification summons’) be reserved to be determined upon the basis of written submissions made to the court following the determination of the then-pending appeal of the 1^st defendant in CACV 44 of 2009, which appeal sought to overturn the Order of this court (‘the Mareva Order’) dated 17 February 2009.

2.On 6 July 2009 the 1^st defendant abandoned this appeal.

3.Hence, the issue of costs of these summonses became available for decision, and pursuant to the direction made the court received written submissions on the issue: from the plaintiffs dated 20 July 2009, and a submission of like date on behalf of the 1^st defendant.

4.The court has re-read its written judgment dated 1 June 2009, which deals at some length with the progression/treatment of these summonses, and further carefully has perused the submissions of the parties.

5.After considering all the circumstances, and in the exercise of its discretion, the court now makes the following orders as to costs of these applications:

(i) As to the ‘interrogation summons’ dated 17 March 2009, the costs’ order is to be in the following terms:

‘There be no order as to costs of this summons’.

(ii) As to the ‘specification summons’ dated 27 April 2009 – which in substance superceded the ‘interrogation summons’ – the costs’ order is to be in the terms following:

‘The costs of and occasioned by the plaintiffs’ summons dated 27 April 2009 (otherwise referred to as ‘the specification summons’) are to be to the plaintiffs, such costs, if not agreed, to be taxed and paid forthwith by the 1^st and 2^nd defendants on a common fund basis’.

6.Those acting for the plaintiffs will please ensure that these Orders as to costs are engrossed in the aforementioned terms.