Lim & Ors v Ong & Ors [2022] EWHC 225 (Ch) (07 February 2022)

Lim & Ors v Ong & Ors [2022] EWHC 225 (Ch) (07 February 2022)

The Claimants were the successful parties as they obtained substantive relief protecting their position, the Defendants' conduct contributed to the failure to reach agreement, and the Claimants acted reasonably in issuing their applications. Costs should be awarded to the Claimants, subject to detailed assessment, with a payment on account of £70,000.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 225 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Say Chong Lim; Claimant/applicant: City Success Investments Limited; Claimant/applicant: Hyson House; Claimant/applicant: Lapland; Defendant/respondent: Chee Kong Ong; Defendant/respondent: Greenacre Capital Limited; Defendant/respondent: Greenacre Capital Partners Limited; Defendant/respondent: Greenacre Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Business and Property Courts Business List (ch D) / Post Interim Relief Applications, Costs Determination
Outcome
Claimants awarded costs of the applications, subject to detailed assessment, with a payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Quia Timet Injunction, Costs Orders, Detailed Assessment, Payment on Account
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Interim Relief Quia Timet Injunction Costs Orders Detailed Assessment Payment on Account

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Say Chong Lim

Claimant/applicant

City Success Investments Limited

Claimant/applicant

Hyson House

Claimant/applicant

Lapland

Claimant/applicant

Chee Kong Ong

Defendant/respondent

Greenacre Capital Limited

Defendant/respondent

Greenacre Capital Partners Limited

Defendant/respondent

Greenacre Properties Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Business and Property Courts Business List (ch D) / Post Interim Relief Applications, Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is the successful party for the purposes of costs?
  2. 2 Whether the Claimants acted reasonably in issuing applications for interim relief
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' conduct justified a departure from the general rule on costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were the successful parties as they obtained substantive relief protecting their position, the Defendants' conduct contributed to the failure to reach agreement, and the Claimants acted reasonably in issuing their applications. Costs should be awarded to the Claimants, subject to detailed assessment, with a payment on account of £70,000.

Court Disposition

Claimants awarded costs of the applications, subject to detailed assessment, with a payment on account ordered.

Orders

  • Claimants awarded their costs of the 1 June application, the interim application resulting in the Order of Michael Green J, and the 13 October application, subject to detailed assessment.
  • Defendants to pay £70,000 on account of costs.