FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

The court held that the appeals were properly treated as de novo hearings and rejected the contention that they were mere regurgitations of Masters' hearings; applying a broad brush approach the court summarily assessed Total Appeal Costs at HK$700,000 (reducing professional hours and specific brief fees), ordered...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1051
Parties
Petitioner: Fung Tin Yau; 1st Respondent: Fung Tin Shing; 2nd Respondent: Fung Wing See; 3rd Respondent: Lai Ng Nui; 4th Respondent: Fung Wing Yan; 5th Respondent: Fung Wing Yin; 6th Respondent: Great Anchor International Limited; 7th Respondent: Maxfortune Trading Limited; 8th Respondent: Premium Management Limited; 9th Respondent: Wyse Investment Limited; 10th Respondent: Samdor Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2020
Case Number
HCA3000/2017
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings and Related Actions (consolidated) / Costs Decision Following Appeal and Direction Hearings
Outcome
Costs orders nisi varied and costs summarily assessed as set out in the orders below
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Winding Up Proceedings, Strike Out Applications, Case Management, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Appeals Costs Assessment Winding Up Proceedings Strike Out Applications Case Management +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Tin Yau

Petitioner

Fung Tin Shing

1st Respondent

Fung Wing See

2nd Respondent

Lai Ng Nui

3rd Respondent

Fung Wing Yan

4th Respondent

Fung Wing Yin

5th Respondent

Great Anchor International Limited

6th Respondent

Maxfortune Trading Limited

7th Respondent

Premium Management Limited

8th Respondent

Wyse Investment Limited

9th Respondent

Samdor Company Limited

10th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings and Related Actions (consolidated) / Costs Decision Following Appeal and Direction Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi in respect of three sets of appeals should be varied to include costs of the Directions Hearing of 11 January 2019
  2. 2 Whether the Total Appeal Costs should be summarily assessed and in what amount
  3. 3 Whether costs of the Direction Summons should be ordered in the cause

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appeals were properly treated as de novo hearings and rejected the contention that they were mere regurgitations of Masters' hearings; applying a broad brush approach the court summarily assessed Total Appeal Costs at HK$700,000 (reducing professional hours and specific brief fees), ordered that the costs of the Direction Summons be in the cause, and summarily assessed the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against sums payable to the Petitioner; apportionment among respondents was left to the parties.

Court Disposition

Costs orders nisi varied and costs summarily assessed as set out in the orders below

Orders

  • Petitioner shall have the costs of all three sets of appeals, including reserved costs for the Directions Hearing of 11 January 2019, to be summarily assessed
  • Costs of the appeals in respect of the 2078 Strike Out Summons to be borne by Madam Lai and Jenny