Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd and Another v. Winson Federal Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1257/2013 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 February 2015.

1. This court handed down a judgment on 1 August 2014 (“ Judgment ”), granting, among other things, final judgment of a total sum of US$38m in favour of Ps against the 1 st defendant Winson Federal and/or 2 nd defendant the Executor, and that the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th and 6 th defendant be given leave to defend on the rest of Ps’ claims.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 1257/2013
Court
High Court CFI
Date13 Feb 2015
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1257/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1257 OF 2013

________________________

BETWEEN
PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD 1st Plaintiff
PACIFIC HARBOUR SPECIAL HOLDINGS LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
and
WINSON FEDERAL LIMITED 1st Defendant
FREDERICK KAN KA CHONG
(in his capacity as the executor of the Estate of Cho Yuk Kei Carlos)
2nd Defendant
CHO WOON MING VINCENT 3rd Defendant
INTERNATIONAL HOTELIERS & ASSOCIATES 4th Defendant
LIMITED
UP SPEED INVESTMENTS LIMITED 5th Defendant
RANMARK INVESTMENTS LIMITED 6th Defendant
FURAMA (SHENYANG) COMPANY LIMITED 7th Defendant

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge B Chu in Chambers
Date of Plaintiff’s Revised Written Submission: 12 November 2014
Date of Decision: 13 February 2015

_______________

D E C I S I O N
(On Costs)

_______________

1.This court handed down a judgment on 1 August 2014 (“Judgment”), granting, among other things, final judgment of a total sum of US$38m in favour of Ps against the 1st defendant Winson Federal and/or 2nd defendant the Executor, and that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th defendant be given leave to defend on the rest of Ps’ claims.

2.In the present Decision, I shall adopt the same abbreviations in the Judgment, unless otherwise indicated.

3.Under the Judgment, I have adjourned the question of costs for argument.  I directed that written submissions to be lodged, and unless any party requested for an oral hearing or otherwise directed by the court, the matter would be dealt with on paper.

4.Ps first lodged their written submissions on 22 September 2014, but as they had referred to without prejudice correspondence, this was objected to, and leave was given for Ps to withdraw their first submissions, and to re-lodge revised written submissions.  This was subsequently done on 22 November 2014.

5.In the meantime, the 3rd defendant had filed a notice to act in person, and had not lodged any submissions on costs.

6.Neither the 1st nor the 2nd defendant had lodged any submissions to contest P’s written submissions.  Also, Messrs Cheung & Choy, acting for 1st, 4th and 6th defendants indicated on 13 October 2014 they had no instructions to reply to P’s submissions.

7.Ps sought costs of and occasioned by the Order 14 summons be paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants to Ps forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed with two Counsel’s certificate.

8.As for the final judgment against 1st and the 2nd defendants, for avoidance of arguments, Ps were prepared to leave the issue relating to costs of this part of the action until final trial .

9.As submitted by Ps, they had succeeded in their Order 14 summons for their monetary claims against the 1st and 2nd defendants, and that it was reasonable for them to pursue the interlocutory proceedings, and that Ps had not engaged in any misconduct.

10.Having considered Ps’ submissions, I see no reason to depart from the usual costs to follow the event.

11.In the above circumstances, I order that the costs of and occasioned by Ps’ Order 14 summons be paid by the 1st and the 2nd defendants to Ps, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two Counsel, and to be paid forthwith.

(Bebe Pui Ying Chu)
Deputy High Court Judge

Messrs Oldham Li & Nie, for the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs

Messrs Cheung & Choy, formerly for the 1st, 4th and 6th defendants, who are now not legally represented

Messrs ONC Lawyers, for the 2nd defendant

The 3rd defendant acted in person

The 5th and 7th defendants were not represented and did not appear