LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER

LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Indemnity costs were refused because, on the facts, the claimant’s conduct did not amount to the requisite affront to the court or abuse of process beyond ordinary hostile litigation and credibility findings; certification for three counsel was refused but two counsel certified as reasonable; the nisi costs order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE SAI NAM v. LI SHU CHUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Lee Sai Nam; 1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): Li Shu Chung; 2nd Defendant (original Action): Li Joseph See Sun; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim) (withdrawn): Allied Ever Holdings Ltd; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Li Sin Man Seline; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Yuen Hing Enterprise Macao Commercial Offshore Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2016
Case Number
HCA1711/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (high Court) Trial Judgment and Costs Variation / Post Judgment Applications to Vary Nisi Costs Order (paper Ruling)
Outcome
Nisi costs order varied; indemnity costs refused; certificate for two counsel granted; nisi order made absolute subject to certification; costs of variation applications ordered against Ken and Joseph.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Certificate for Counsel, Abuse of Process, Variation of Nisi Costs Order, Separate Legal Representation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Trusts Company Law Indemnity Costs Certificate for Counsel Abuse of Process Variation of Nisi Costs Order +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Sai Nam

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Li Shu Chung

1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Li Joseph See Sun

2nd Defendant (original Action)

Allied Ever Holdings Ltd

2nd Defendant (counterclaim) (withdrawn)

Li Sin Man Seline

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Yuen Hing Enterprise Macao Commercial Offshore Limited

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (high Court) Trial Judgment and Costs Variation / Post Judgment Applications to Vary Nisi Costs Order (paper Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs awarded nisi should be taxed on indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether a certificate for three counsel should be granted
  3. 3 Whether Ken and Joseph could vary the nisi costs order out of time

Ratio Decidendi

Indemnity costs were refused because, on the facts, the claimant’s conduct did not amount to the requisite affront to the court or abuse of process beyond ordinary hostile litigation and credibility findings; certification for three counsel was refused but two counsel certified as reasonable; the nisi costs order was varied to grant certificate for two counsel and, subject to that, made absolute; Ken and Joseph’s belated attempt to vary was out of time and their request was rejected, and they were ordered to pay the costs of the variation applications to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Nisi costs order varied; indemnity costs refused; certificate for two counsel granted; nisi order made absolute subject to certification; costs of variation applications ordered against Ken and Joseph.

Orders

  • The nisi costs order dated 9 December 2015 is varied so that there is a certificate for 2 counsel for the Father and Seline
  • Subject to the above, the nisi costs order dated 9 December 2015 is made absolute