RE AXONA INTERNATIONAL CREDIT AND COMMERCE LTD

RE AXONA INTERNATIONAL CREDIT AND COMMERCE LTD

The joint liquidators and the official receiver were entitled to their reasonable costs; indemnity costs were inappropriate in the absence of a penal or contempt element; the appropriate form of taxation in this liquidation is common fund taxation with a direction to the Taxing Master to exercise his discretion...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
RE AXONA INTERNATIONAL CREDIT AND COMMERCE LTD
Parties
1st Plaintiff: American Express International Banking Corporation; 2nd Plaintiff: State Street Bank International; 3rd Plaintiff: Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company; 1st Defendant: Michael J. Johnson; 2nd Defendant: Eoghan M. McMillan; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 1984
Case Number
HCCW26/1983
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Under Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Ruling on Costs Following Judgment and Hearings on Summonses
Outcome
Applicants ordered to pay costs to the respondents and to the official receiver; costs to be taxed on a common fund basis with a direction to the Taxing Master to exercise his discretion under O.62 r.32(2).
Legal Topics
Costs Taxation, Common Fund Basis, Solicitor and Own Client Taxation, Indemnity Costs, Taxing Master Discretion, Liquidation Procedure
Source Language
en
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Law Costs Taxation Common Fund Basis Solicitor and Own Client Taxation Indemnity Costs +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

American Express International Banking Corporation

1st Plaintiff

State Street Bank International

2nd Plaintiff

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company

3rd Plaintiff

Michael J. Johnson

1st Defendant

Eoghan M. McMillan

2nd Defendant

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Under Companies Ordinance Cap.32 / Ruling on Costs Following Judgment and Hearings on Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether joint liquidators and official receiver were entitled to recover costs of the hearings
  2. 2 Which scale of costs taxation was appropriate (indemnity, common fund with direction, or special solicitor and own client)
  3. 3 Whether indemnity or penal costs were appropriate absent contempt or similar conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The joint liquidators and the official receiver were entitled to their reasonable costs; indemnity costs were inappropriate in the absence of a penal or contempt element; the appropriate form of taxation in this liquidation is common fund taxation with a direction to the Taxing Master to exercise his discretion under O.62 r.32(2); accordingly the applicants must pay the costs of the respondents and the official receiver, to be taxed on that basis.

Court Disposition

Applicants ordered to pay costs to the respondents and to the official receiver; costs to be taxed on a common fund basis with a direction to the Taxing Master to exercise his discretion under O.62 r.32(2).

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the costs of the respondents and of the Official Receiver
  • If not agreed, costs to be taxed on a common fund basis with a direction to the Taxing Master to exercise his discretion under O.62 r.32(2)