TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that the 16 March 2001 letter did not provide a sufficient factual basis to join the 9th defendant, discovery showed no evidence of his involvement, the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed and effectively acknowledged likely defeat by discontinuing; accordingly the 9th defendant was entitled to his costs,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN; 2nd Plaintiff: JORGEN GUDIK MORTENSEN; 1st Defendant: BARBER ASIA LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES GROUP LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHRISTOPHER MARK BARBER; 4th Defendant: ANDREW NICHOLAS BARBER; 5th Defendant: PHILIP CLARK; 6th Defendant: JAYNIE BARBER; 7th Defendant: CHARLES FREDERICK DUNFORD; 8th Defendant: COLIN SCOTT-LAWS; 9th Defendant: PETER ELLIOT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 June 2007
Case Number
HCA1963/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Loss of Investment / Company Related Claims / Costs Hearing Following Plaintiffs' Effective Discontinuance Against 9th Defendant
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay the 9th defendant's costs
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Taxation of Costs, Discovery, Limitation, Joinder, Shadow Director
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Discontinuance Taxation of Costs Discovery Limitation Joinder +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN

1st Plaintiff

JORGEN GUDIK MORTENSEN

2nd Plaintiff

BARBER ASIA LIMITED

1st Defendant

INTERNATIONAL STRATEGIES GROUP LIMITED

2nd Defendant

CHRISTOPHER MARK BARBER

3rd Defendant

ANDREW NICHOLAS BARBER

4th Defendant

PHILIP CLARK

5th Defendant

JAYNIE BARBER

6th Defendant

CHARLES FREDERICK DUNFORD

7th Defendant

COLIN SCOTT-LAWS

8th Defendant

PETER ELLIOT

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Loss of Investment / Company Related Claims / Costs Hearing Following Plaintiffs' Effective Discontinuance Against 9th Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs were justified in suing the 9th defendant
  2. 2 Whether the discontinuance operated without leave and the costs consequences
  3. 3 Whether the 9th defendant was entitled to costs as of right or by court discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 16 March 2001 letter did not provide a sufficient factual basis to join the 9th defendant, discovery showed no evidence of his involvement, the plaintiffs unreasonably delayed and effectively acknowledged likely defeat by discontinuing; accordingly the 9th defendant was entitled to his costs, including the costs of the costs hearing, to be taxed on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay the 9th defendant's costs

Orders

  • Plaintiffs must pay the 9th defendant's costs in the proceedings and the costs of the argument on 1 June 2007
  • All costs to be taxed on a party and party basis