PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD v. DING PENG AND OTHERS

PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD v. DING PENG AND OTHERS

The judge held that the applications of 5 November and the subsequent applications were discrete and were reasonable in the circumstances; exercising the court's discretion he ordered no order as to costs in respect of those two matters and noted that the earlier ruling was recorded as delivered on 31 October (the 19th day of the trial).

Citation
PANCO INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD v. DING PENG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (hca5370/1993): Prosperfield Ventures Limited; Plaintiff (hccl98/1995): Panco Industrial Holdings Limited; 1st Defendant (hca5370/1993): Tripole Trading Limited; 2nd Defendant (hca5370/1993; Hccl98/1995): Zheng Lie Lie; 4th Defendant (hca5370/1993); 1st Defendant (hccl98/1995): Ding Peng; 3rd Defendant (hccl98/1995): Ng Hiu Nam; 4th Defendant (hccl98/1995): Deng Liu Gen; 5th Defendant (hccl98/1995): China Projects Limited; 6th Defendant (hccl98/1995): Kenrey Finance Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 January 2004
Case Number
HCCL98/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings (court of First Instance) / Ruling (costs)
Outcome
No order as to costs in respect of the applications of 5 November and the subsequent applications; correction recorded that the earlier ruling was delivered on 31 October (19th day of trial).
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Post Judgment Applications, Court's Discretion on Costs, Characterisation of Date of Ruling
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Commercial Law Costs Orders Post Judgment Applications Court's Discretion on Costs Characterisation of Date of Ruling

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

Prosperfield Ventures Limited

Plaintiff (hca5370/1993)

Panco Industrial Holdings Limited

Plaintiff (hccl98/1995)

Tripole Trading Limited

1st Defendant (hca5370/1993)

Zheng Lie Lie

2nd Defendant (hca5370/1993; Hccl98/1995)

Ding Peng

4th Defendant (hca5370/1993); 1st Defendant (hccl98/1995)

Ng Hiu Nam

3rd Defendant (hccl98/1995)

Deng Liu Gen

4th Defendant (hccl98/1995)

China Projects Limited

5th Defendant (hccl98/1995)

Kenrey Finance Limited

6th Defendant (hccl98/1995)

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings (court of First Instance) / Ruling (costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to order costs for the applications of 5 November and the subsequent applications
  2. 2 Whether those applications were discrete and reasonable
  3. 3 Proper identification of the date on which an earlier ruling was delivered

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that the applications of 5 November and the subsequent applications were discrete and were reasonable in the circumstances; exercising the court's discretion he ordered no order as to costs in respect of those two matters and noted that the earlier ruling was recorded as delivered on 31 October (the 19th day of the trial).

Court Disposition

No order as to costs in respect of the applications of 5 November and the subsequent applications; correction recorded that the earlier ruling was delivered on 31 October (19th day of trial).

Orders

  • No order as to costs in respect of the applications on 5 November and the subsequent applications.
  • Record that the earlier ruling was delivered on 31 October, the 19th day of the trial.