XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

The court held that where counsel was instructed and briefed, certain solicitors' items (specifically items D2, D3 and E1) were excessive and should be reduced; on summary assessment the reasonable costs to be allowed to the Respondent were fixed at HK$115,000.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2180
Parties
Petitioner: Xu Liu Chun; 1st Respondent: Wu Chang Jiang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 September 2019
Case Number
HCMP3166/2014
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Companies Ordinance S724 / Miscellaneous Proceedings HCMP 3166/2014 / Decision on Costs / Summary Assessment Following Refusal to Vary Costs Order Nisi
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order nisi refused; Respondents awarded costs of the application assessed summarily.
Legal Topics
Costs of Litigation, Summary Assessment of Costs, Costs Order Nisi, Variation Application, Companies Ordinance S724
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Costs of Litigation Summary Assessment of Costs Costs Order Nisi Variation Application Companies Ordinance S724

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xu Liu Chun

Petitioner

Wu Chang Jiang

1st Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Companies Ordinance S724 / Miscellaneous Proceedings HCMP 3166/2014 / Decision on Costs / Summary Assessment Following Refusal to Vary Costs Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied
  2. 2 Quantum of costs payable to the Respondent
  3. 3 Whether certain solicitor time items were excessive given counsel was instructed

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that where counsel was instructed and briefed, certain solicitors' items (specifically items D2, D3 and E1) were excessive and should be reduced; on summary assessment the reasonable costs to be allowed to the Respondent were fixed at HK$115,000.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order nisi refused; Respondents awarded costs of the application assessed summarily.

Orders

  • Petitioner refused leave to vary the costs order nisi dated 13 July 2018
  • Respondents granted their costs of the application to be paid by the Petitioner