Top One International (China) Property Group Co Ltd and Another v. Top One Property Group Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1244/2009 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This decision on costs should be read together with the decision that I handed down on 16 October 2009.
|
HCA1244/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 1244 OF 2009 ------------------------ BETWEEN
------------------------- Before : Hon Poon J in Chambers Dates of Written Submissions on Costs : 30 October and 1 November 2009 Date of Decision on Costs : 11 November2009 ------------------------------------------- DECISION ON COSTS ------------------------------------------- 1.This decision on costs should be read together with the decision that I handed down on 16 October 2009. 2.By that decision, I allowed the 1st plaintiff’s applications to continue the 1st and 2nd Orders; dismissed the defendants’ applications for discharge of the Orders; allowed the 2nd plaintiff’s application for appointment of receivers over the 1st defendant’s shares; and ordered the 3rd defendant to make discovery of his assets as per paragraph 2.1 of the 2nd Order. 3.The parties have pursuant to the court’s direction filed their respective submissions on costs. I do not propose to deal with their submissions in length, which I have already considered carefully. 4.The usual practice in interlocutory injunctions is to order that the successful party’s costs be his costs in the cause. It should apply to the costs of 1st and 2nd Orders, which had been reserved by the ex parte judge and the 1st plaintiff’s application for further discovery. Those costs will be the 1st plaintiff’s costs in the cause. 5.The usual practice also applies to the 2nd plaintiff’s application. Those costs will be the 2nd plaintiff’s costs in cause. 6.However, the position is different on the costs in respect of the 1st plaintiff’s applications for continuation of the 1st and 2nd Orders and the defendants’ applications for discharge. On the materials before me, there is ample evidence to justify the continuation of the Orders. But there is simply none to even enable the defendants to mount their applications for discharge. The defendants ought not have opposed the 1st plaintiff’s applications or mounted their applications. In such circumstances, costs should follow the event. I will order the defendants to pay the 1st plaintiff’s costs of the applications for continuation and discharge forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed. 7.Finally, there will be a certificate for two counsel for the costs orders that I made above where applicable.
Mr Douglas Lam, instructed by Messrs Lovells, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Mr William Wong and Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by Messrs Peter Lau & Co., for the 1st to 3rd Defendants |
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 1244/2009