FENN KAR BAK LILY v. SO SHIU TSUNG THOMAS

FENN KAR BAK LILY v. SO SHIU TSUNG THOMAS

The court found the claimants' actions to be oppressive, vexatious and an abuse of process, and therefore indemnity costs are justified; refusal to mediate did not mitigate the claimants' misconduct and does not defeat an indemnity costs order.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 1401
Parties
Plaintiff / 1st Plaintiff: FENN KAR BAK LILY; 2nd Plaintiff: TSE TO CHUEN; 3rd Plaintiff: LEUNG WUN MAN EMBA; Defendant / 1st Defendant: SO SHIU TSUNG THOMAS; 2nd Defendant: AU SIU HONG TONY
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 2021
Case Number
DCCJ2047/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation (strike Out Applications; Consolidation; Interlocutory Injunction) / Costs Determination Following Dispositive Decision (paper Disposal)
Outcome
The court confirmed striking out and dismissal of the actions and ordered indemnity costs against the claimants in favour of the defendant(s) in respect of the specified applications and summonses.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Interlocutory Injunction, Consolidation
Source Language
en
Civil Litigation Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Indemnity Costs Strike Out Abuse of Process Interlocutory Injunction Consolidation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FENN KAR BAK LILY

Plaintiff / 1st Plaintiff

TSE TO CHUEN

2nd Plaintiff

LEUNG WUN MAN EMBA

3rd Plaintiff

SO SHIU TSUNG THOMAS

Defendant / 1st Defendant

AU SIU HONG TONY

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation (strike Out Applications; Consolidation; Interlocutory Injunction) / Costs Determination Following Dispositive Decision (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' proceedings constituted an abuse of process justifying striking out and dismissal
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs are appropriate given findings of oppression, vexatiousness and abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether refusal to engage in mediation affects entitlement to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the claimants' actions to be oppressive, vexatious and an abuse of process, and therefore indemnity costs are justified; refusal to mediate did not mitigate the claimants' misconduct and does not defeat an indemnity costs order.

Court Disposition

The court confirmed striking out and dismissal of the actions and ordered indemnity costs against the claimants in favour of the defendant(s) in respect of the specified applications and summonses.

Orders

  • Madam Fenn to pay Mr So costs of and occasioned by the 1st Action including the 1st striking out summons on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
  • The Claimants to pay Mr So and Mr Au costs of and occasioned by the 2nd Action including the 2nd striking out summons on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.