Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Hung & Anor [2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm) (03 October 2023)

Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Hung & Anor [2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm) (03 October 2023)

The claimant's failures to serve notice challenging authenticity in time, to issue an application for relief from sanctions promptly, and to require the application to be listed at the start of trial were the primary causes of the adjournment. Some responsibility also rests with the second, third, and fourth respondents for not addressing the inadequate time estimate sooner. Costs are apportioned accordingly.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2445 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd.; First Respondent: Kei Kin Hung; Second Respondent: Sparkle Roll Capital Ltd; Third Respondent: Ms Meihe Qi; Fourth Respondent: Fourth Respondent; Fifth Respondent: Fifth Respondent; Sixth Respondent: Sixth Respondent; Seventh Respondent: Seventh Respondent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Costs Ruling Following Adjournment
Outcome
Costs order following adjournment; costs apportioned among parties.
Legal Topics
Costs, Adjournment, Relief From Sanctions, Time Estimates, Charging Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Adjournment Relief From Sanctions Time Estimates Charging Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Co Ltd.

Claimant

Kei Kin Hung

First Respondent

Sparkle Roll Capital Ltd

Second Respondent

Ms Meihe Qi

Third Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Costs Ruling Following Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment of the substantive hearing to make a charging order absolute
  2. 2 Responsibility for inadequate time estimate and late applications for relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's failures to serve notice challenging authenticity in time, to issue an application for relief from sanctions promptly, and to require the application to be listed at the start of trial were the primary causes of the adjournment. Some responsibility also rests with the second, third, and fourth respondents for not addressing the inadequate time estimate sooner. Costs are apportioned accordingly.

Court Disposition

Costs order following adjournment; costs apportioned among parties.

Orders

  • Second and third respondents recover 75% of their costs of and occasioned by the adjournment from the claimant, assessed on the standard basis.
  • Fourth respondent recovers 50% of her costs of the adjournment from the claimant, assessed on the standard basis.