Ong & Ors v Ong Siauw Ping

Ong & Ors v Ong Siauw Ping

The court declined to make a further disclosure order at this stage, holding that the previous order should be drawn up and sealed, and that any alleged non-compliance should be addressed by further application. The court ordered a further payment on account of costs for the First Claimant, reduced to reflect possible duplication. The court refused a stay of the payment orders, noting the appeal was not realistically arguable. Costs were apportioned to reflect the parties' relative success.

Parties
Claimant: Jane Rebecca Ong; Claimant: Alexander Ong; Claimant: Nicholas Ong; Claimant: Jordana Ong; Defendant: Ong Siauw Ping
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment; Costs and Compliance Orders Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Orders for payment on account of costs, extension of time for payment, refusal of stay, and apportionment of costs.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Costs, Orders for Payment on Account, Extension of Time, Stay of Execution
Civil Procedure Disclosure Costs Orders for Payment on Account Extension of Time Stay of Execution

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Rebecca Ong

Claimant

Alexander Ong

Claimant

Nicholas Ong

Claimant

Jordana Ong

Claimant

Ong Siauw Ping

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment; Costs and Compliance Orders Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further order for disclosure with future dates and penal notice should be made against the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant has complied with the previous disclosure order
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants can recover costs for two sets of solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to make a further disclosure order at this stage, holding that the previous order should be drawn up and sealed, and that any alleged non-compliance should be addressed by further application. The court ordered a further payment on account of costs for the First Claimant, reduced to reflect possible duplication. The court refused a stay of the payment orders, noting the appeal was not realistically arguable. Costs were apportioned to reflect the parties' relative success.

Court Disposition

Orders for payment on account of costs, extension of time for payment, refusal of stay, and apportionment of costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £550,000 on account of costs to Second to Fourth Claimants by 25 January 2016.
  • Defendant to pay £100,000 on account of costs to First Claimant by 25 January 2016.