Lee Chu v Kin Ming Je & Anor (Costs)

Lee Chu v Kin Ming Je & Anor (Costs)

Costs follow the event for each application; criticisms of conduct or claim imperfections did not justify departure from the general rule. No basis for indemnity costs; standard basis applies. Payment on account ordered for costs against Mr Je, not against Ms Rong due to lack of fair foundation and supporting evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Lee Chu; First Defendant: Kin Ming Je; Second Defendant: Sin Ting Rong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Interim Applications; Costs Determination
Outcome
Costs orders made in favour of Ms Chu against Mr Je for successful applications; costs orders made in favour of Ms Rong against Ms Chu for dismissed applications; detailed assessment ordered; payment on account of £150,000 ordered against Mr Je; no payment on account ordered as between Ms Chu and Ms Rong.
Legal Topics
Worldwide Freezing Injunction, Asset Disclosure Order, Strike Out Applications, Jurisdiction Challenge, Expert Evidence, Costs Assessment, Payment on Account
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Worldwide Freezing Injunction Asset Disclosure Order Strike Out Applications Jurisdiction Challenge Expert Evidence +2 more

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 / Post Interim Applications; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Incidence of costs for interim applications
  2. 2 Basis of costs assessment (standard vs indemnity)
  3. 3 Payment on account of costs

Ratio Decidendi

Costs follow the event for each application; criticisms of conduct or claim imperfections did not justify departure from the general rule. No basis for indemnity costs; standard basis applies. Payment on account ordered for costs against Mr Je, not against Ms Rong due to lack of fair foundation and supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made in favour of Ms Chu against Mr Je for successful applications; costs orders made in favour of Ms Rong against Ms Chu for dismissed applications; detailed assessment ordered; payment on account of £150,000 ordered against Mr Je; no payment on account ordered as between Ms Chu and Ms Rong.

Orders

  • Mr Je to pay Ms Chu’s costs of the worldwide freezing injunction and asset disclosure order application.
  • Ms Rong to pay Ms Chu’s costs of jurisdiction application.