SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ANDREW LIU AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ANDREW LIU AND OTHERS

Where an interlocutory application fails the successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs; the court will not revisit the reasonableness of having brought the application except in unusual circumstances and indemnity costs are only ordered where justified.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1105
Parties
Petitioner: SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION; 1st Respondent: ANDREW LIU（廖駿倫）; 2nd Respondent: HUI QUINCY KWONG HEI（許廣熙）; 3rd Respondent: LO KAN SUN（盧更新）; 4th Respondent: AU SHUK YEE SUE（柯淑儀）; 5th Respondent: SUEN YICK LUN PHILIP（孫益麟）; 6th Respondent: SCOTT ALLEN PHILLIPS; 7th Respondent: AGUSTIN V QUE; 8th Respondent: ROGER THOMAS BEST; 9th Respondent: GARY DREW DOUGLAS; 10th Respondent: PETER TEMPLE WHITELAM; 11th Respondent: FREEMAN FINTECH CORPORATION LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Case Number
HCMP2653/2016
Procedural Posture
Disqualification Petition Under Section 214 SFO / Interlocutory (costs Variation Application)
Outcome
Application to vary the costs order refused; indemnity costs not awarded; costs ordered to be paid by respondent.
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Interlocutory Costs, Strike Out Application, Civil Justice Reform
Source Language
EN
Securities Law Civil Procedure Costs Director Disqualification Interlocutory Costs Strike Out Application Civil Justice Reform

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Petitioner

ANDREW LIU（廖駿倫）

1st Respondent

HUI QUINCY KWONG HEI（許廣熙）

2nd Respondent

LO KAN SUN（盧更新）

3rd Respondent

AU SHUK YEE SUE（柯淑儀）

4th Respondent

SUEN YICK LUN PHILIP（孫益麟）

5th Respondent

SCOTT ALLEN PHILLIPS

6th Respondent

AGUSTIN V QUE

7th Respondent

ROGER THOMAS BEST

8th Respondent

GARY DREW DOUGLAS

9th Respondent

PETER TEMPLE WHITELAM

10th Respondent

FREEMAN FINTECH CORPORATION LIMITED

11th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disqualification Petition Under Section 214 SFO / Interlocutory (costs Variation Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs nisi should be varied to costs in the cause
  2. 2 Whether reasonableness of bringing the interlocutory application justifies departing from costs to follow the event
  3. 3 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded

Ratio Decidendi

Where an interlocutory application fails the successful party is ordinarily entitled to costs; the court will not revisit the reasonableness of having brought the application except in unusual circumstances and indemnity costs are only ordered where justified.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the costs order refused; indemnity costs not awarded; costs ordered to be paid by respondent.

Orders

  • Application to vary costs order refused
  • Mr Roger Thomas Best to pay the Securities and Futures Commission's costs of the summons with a certificate for one counsel forthwith