Chu v Je & Anor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 455 (Ch) (01 March 2024)

Chu v Je & Anor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 455 (Ch) (01 March 2024)

The court applied the general rule that the successful party should receive their costs, finding no sufficient reason to depart from this in favour of a proportionate order or indemnity costs. Ms Chu was awarded her costs against Mr Je and Ms Rong on the applications she won, and ordered to pay Ms Rong's costs on the application she lost. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis. A payment on account of £150,000 was ordered against Mr Je, reflecting a reasonable proportion of Ms Chu's likely recoverable costs. No payment on account was ordered as between Ms Chu and Ms Rong due to cross-liabilities and lack of substantiation.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 455 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Chu; First Defendant: Kin Ming Je; Second Defendant: Sin Ting Rong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (business and Property Courts) / Post Interim Applications; Costs Judgment
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of Ms Chu against Mr Je and Ms Rong on successful applications; Ms Chu to pay Ms Rong's costs on the dismissed freezing injunction application; costs to be assessed on the standard basis; payment on account of £150,000 ordered against Mr Je; no payment on account as between Ms Chu and Ms...
Legal Topics
Costs, Freezing Injunctions, Jurisdiction, Strike Out Applications, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Costs Freezing Injunctions Jurisdiction Strike Out Applications Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Chu

Claimant

Kin Ming Je

First Defendant

Sin Ting Rong

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (business and Property Courts) / Post Interim Applications; Costs Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of various interim applications, including freezing injunctions, strike out applications, jurisdiction challenges, and expert evidence applications; whether costs should be assessed on the standard or indemnity basis; whether payments on account of costs should be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the general rule that the successful party should receive their costs, finding no sufficient reason to depart from this in favour of a proportionate order or indemnity costs. Ms Chu was awarded her costs against Mr Je and Ms Rong on the applications she won, and ordered to pay Ms Rong's costs on the application she lost. Costs are to be assessed on the standard basis. A payment on account of £150,000 was ordered against Mr Je, reflecting a reasonable proportion of Ms Chu's likely recoverable costs. No payment on account was ordered as between Ms Chu and Ms Rong due to cross-liabilities and lack of substantiation.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of Ms Chu against Mr Je and Ms Rong on successful applications; Ms Chu to pay Ms Rong's costs on the dismissed freezing injunction application; costs to be assessed on the standard basis; payment on account of £150,000 ordered against Mr Je; no payment on account as between Ms Chu and Ms...

Orders

  • Mr Je to pay Ms Chu's costs of the freezing injunction, strike out, jurisdiction, and expert evidence applications, subject to detailed assessment.
  • Ms Rong to pay Ms Chu's costs of the strike out and jurisdiction applications, subject to detailed assessment.