CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

Given the proximity of the proposed sale to an adverse judgment, the lack of readily available information about completion and the circumstances suggesting risk of asset dissipation, it was reasonable to seek the ex parte Mareva injunction; accordingly respondent must pay petitioner's costs of the ex parte...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Cheung Sai Lun; 1st Respondent: Lau Tai Chin Francis; 2nd Respondent: UPI Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Case Number
HCCW677/2004
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up / Costs Determination (post Judgment Injunction)
Outcome
Partial success for petitioner: respondent ordered to pay costs of ex parte application and two thirds of costs of the costs application; no order for costs of the inter partes hearing.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Ex Parte Applications, Costs of Interlocutory Applications, Non Disclosure/misrepresentation, Payment Into Court
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Mareva Injunction Ex Parte Applications Costs of Interlocutory Applications Non Disclosure/misrepresentation +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Sai Lun

Petitioner

Lau Tai Chin Francis

1st Respondent

UPI Technology Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up / Costs Determination (post Judgment Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable to apply ex parte for a Mareva injunction
  2. 2 Whether applicant made material non-disclosure or misrepresentation in ex parte application
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should bear costs of the ex parte and inter partes applications

Ratio Decidendi

Given the proximity of the proposed sale to an adverse judgment, the lack of readily available information about completion and the circumstances suggesting risk of asset dissipation, it was reasonable to seek the ex parte Mareva injunction; accordingly respondent must pay petitioner's costs of the ex parte application. The inter partes hearing required respondent's attendance for appropriate exceptions and therefore there is no order as to costs for that hearing. The respondent must pay two thirds of petitioner's costs of this costs application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Partial success for petitioner: respondent ordered to pay costs of ex parte application and two thirds of costs of the costs application; no order for costs of the inter partes hearing.

Orders

  • First respondent to pay petitioner's costs of the ex parte injunction application, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.
  • No order as to costs of the inter partes hearing (continuation/variation of injunction).