香港特別行政區 訴 曹貴子及另二人

香港特別行政區 訴 曹貴子及另二人

The court exercised its discretion and awarded defence costs for Count 1 only to the second and third defendants; all other costs applications were refused. The first defendant's public conduct amounted to conduct inviting suspicion, justifying refusal of costs for him; the second and third defendants did not exhibit such conduct in relation to Count 1 and were therefore awarded costs for that count; all three defendants' failure to challenge the 2016 annual report constituted conduct amounting to inviting suspicion and warranted refusal of costs for Count 2.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 25
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Defendant (first): 曹貴子; Defendant (second): 陳麗兒; Defendant (third): 陳毅凱 Byron
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 December 2020
Case Number
DCCC678/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Costs Application After Acquittal
Outcome
Partially granted: costs awarded to second and third defendants for Count 1; all other costs applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, False Statement by Company Directors, Costs After Acquittal, Self‑suspicion / Conduct Barring Costs
Source Language
CH
Criminal Law Company Law Corporate Governance Costs and Litigation Funding Conspiracy to Defraud False Statement by Company Directors Costs After Acquittal Self‑suspicion / Conduct Barring Costs

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

曹貴子

Defendant (first)

陳麗兒

Defendant (second)

陳毅凱 Byron

Defendant (third)

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Costs Application After Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants are entitled to return of defence costs after acquittal
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's public conduct amounted to conduct that justifies denial of costs ('self‑suspicion')
  3. 3 Whether the second and third defendants should receive costs for the conspiracy count

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion and awarded defence costs for Count 1 only to the second and third defendants; all other costs applications were refused. The first defendant's public conduct amounted to conduct inviting suspicion, justifying refusal of costs for him; the second and third defendants did not exhibit such conduct in relation to Count 1 and were therefore awarded costs for that count; all three defendants' failure to challenge the 2016 annual report constituted conduct amounting to inviting suspicion and warranted refusal of costs for Count 2.

Court Disposition

Partially granted: costs awarded to second and third defendants for Count 1; all other costs applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Order that the second and third defendants be awarded defence costs in respect of Count 1; certification limited to two counsel each.
  • All other applications for the return of defence costs are refused.