PETER CHEUNG & CO., SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD

PETER CHEUNG & CO., SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD

The court awards costs to Mr Yu on an indemnity basis because Perfect Direct failed to set aside or properly resist the arbitral award, engaged in conduct amounting to re-litigation and delay, and did not provide any persuasive reason to depart from the normal practice established in the cited authorities; costs of the costs proceedings are part of the indemnity costs award.

Citation
PETER CHEUNG & CO., SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD
Parties
Applicant (interpleader): PETER CHEUNG & Co., SOLICITORS (a firm); Successful Party/appellant: Mr Yu; Respondent/paying Party: Perfect Direct; Company (subject of Convertible Note): Bright International Group Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Case Number
HCMP2493/2012
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Application and Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Decision on Costs Post Appeal
Outcome
Costs awarded to Mr Yu on an indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Set Aside of Awards, Abuse of Process, Interpleader
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Civil Procedure Costs Indemnity Costs Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Set Aside of Awards Abuse of Process Interpleader

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PETER CHEUNG & Co., SOLICITORS (a firm)

Applicant (interpleader)

Mr Yu

Successful Party/appellant

Perfect Direct

Respondent/paying Party

Bright International Group Limited

Company (subject of Convertible Note)

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Application and Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Decision on Costs Post Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded where a party fails to set aside or resist enforcement of an arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether the paying party (Perfect Direct) acted improperly or abusively to justify indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether unsuccessful proceedings connected with arbitration attract indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court awards costs to Mr Yu on an indemnity basis because Perfect Direct failed to set aside or properly resist the arbitral award, engaged in conduct amounting to re-litigation and delay, and did not provide any persuasive reason to depart from the normal practice established in the cited authorities; costs of the costs proceedings are part of the indemnity costs award.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to Mr Yu on an indemnity basis

Orders

  • Costs awarded to Mr Yu to be taxed on an indemnity basis
  • Costs incurred in relation to the decision on costs to be treated as part of the costs awarded to Mr Yu