IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Given the cumulative special and unusual features — unjustified ex parte Mareva relief maintained without inter partes justification, gross miscalculation of amount restrained, concealment of the true source of security funds, repeated delay and defaults, deliberate suppression and non-disclosure of material...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (qingyuan Action): Image Technology (Hong Kong) Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (qingyuan Action): Qingyuan Real Estate Development General Company; 3rd Plaintiff (qingyuan Action): Photo Supply Corporation; 4th Plaintiff (qingyuan Action): Qingyuan 3D Photographic Technology Corporation; 1st Plaintiff (beijing Action): The Beijing Trust Investment Corporation of the People's Construction Bank of China; 2nd Plaintiff (beijing Action): Zhong Man Electronic System Corporation; 3rd Plaintiff (beijing Action): Beijing Sunny Stereoscopic Photography Technology Co. Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Ho Ying Cheong; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ching Cheong Investment Co. Ltd.; 3rd Defendant: Ho Ching Cheong International Co. Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 February 1995
Case Number
HCA6861/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Concerning Mareva Injunctions, Discovery and Alleged Fraud / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Hearings and Trial (application for Indemnity Costs)
Outcome
Defendants' application for indemnity costs granted
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Indemnity Costs, Non Disclosure, Security for Costs, Abuse of Process, Suppression of Documents, Offers and Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Discovery Fraud Equitable Relief Mareva Injunction Indemnity Costs +5 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Image Technology (Hong Kong) Limited

1st Plaintiff (qingyuan Action)

Qingyuan Real Estate Development General Company

2nd Plaintiff (qingyuan Action)

Photo Supply Corporation

3rd Plaintiff (qingyuan Action)

Qingyuan 3D Photographic Technology Corporation

4th Plaintiff (qingyuan Action)

The Beijing Trust Investment Corporation of the People's Construction Bank of China

1st Plaintiff (beijing Action)

Zhong Man Electronic System Corporation

2nd Plaintiff (beijing Action)

Beijing Sunny Stereoscopic Photography Technology Co. Ltd.

3rd Plaintiff (beijing Action)

Ho Ying Cheong

1st Defendant

Ho Ching Cheong Investment Co. Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Ho Ching Cheong International Co. Ltd.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Concerning Mareva Injunctions, Discovery and Alleged Fraud / Costs Application Following Interlocutory Hearings and Trial (application for Indemnity Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs on an indemnity basis
  2. 2 Admissibility of plaintiffs' solicitor Susan Johnson's affirmations
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs' conduct amounted to an abuse of process or an affront to the court

Ratio Decidendi

Given the cumulative special and unusual features — unjustified ex parte Mareva relief maintained without inter partes justification, gross miscalculation of amount restrained, concealment of the true source of security funds, repeated delay and defaults, deliberate suppression and non-disclosure of material documents and misleading evidence — the court exercised its discretion under O.62 r.28(3) to award costs on an indemnity basis to the defendants in both actions, including costs of related summonses.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for indemnity costs granted

Orders

  • Costs awarded to defendants on indemnity basis in both actions (HCA No.A6861/1993 and HCA No.A9302/1993)
  • Costs of the 1st Defendant's summons to dismiss the 1st Plaintiff for non-disclosure and the plaintiffs' summonses to have the actions dismissed upon withdrawal awarded on indemnity basis