A.S. DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAM YIU TO JOSEPH AND OTHERS

A.S. DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAM YIU TO JOSEPH AND OTHERS

Security for costs against the 2nd Plaintiff was refused because the Statement of Claim disclosed no independent cause of action by the 2nd Plaintiff and a local co-plaintiff existed; variation of the Mareva injunction was permitted on the specific undertakings given regarding mainland property and title documents and because the defendant had accounted for funds and no convincing evidence of concealment existed; limited sums were fixed for living expenses and legal costs ($26,500 per month living; $300,000 legal costs to setting down) and judgment was ordered to be entered against the 1st Defendant to the extent of admissions; plaintiffs must pay costs of the discovery summons because...

Citation
A.S. DESIGN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LAM YIU TO JOSEPH AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: A.S. DESIGN LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: MAUI TOYS INC.; 1st Defendant: LAM YIU TO JOSEPH; 2nd Defendant: TANG YUK HEUNG EVELYN; 3rd Defendant: FULLY LOYAL LIMITED; 4th Defendant: KINGS SOURCE LIMITED; 5th Defendant: HRADICAL DESIGNS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: LAM CHING TAO FREDERICK
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2001
Case Number
HCA3329/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction, Contractual and Proprietary Claims) / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing on Multiple Summonses (variation of Mareva, Security for Costs, Discovery, Judgment on Admissions)
Outcome
Summonses were partly allowed and partly dismissed; interlocutory orders varied; judgment entered against 1st Defendant to extent of admissions; costs allocated by order nisi.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction Variation, Security for Costs, Discovery, Judgment on Admissions, Costs Orders, Use of Frozen Assets for Living and Legal Expenses
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions (mareva) Contract Law Intellectual Property Costs and Security for Costs Mareva Injunction Variation Security for Costs Discovery +3 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.S. DESIGN LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

MAUI TOYS INC.

2nd Plaintiff

LAM YIU TO JOSEPH

1st Defendant

TANG YUK HEUNG EVELYN

2nd Defendant

FULLY LOYAL LIMITED

3rd Defendant

KINGS SOURCE LIMITED

4th Defendant

HRADICAL DESIGNS LIMITED

5th Defendant

LAM CHING TAO FREDERICK

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction, Contractual and Proprietary Claims) / Interlocutory/chambers Hearing on Multiple Summonses (variation of Mareva, Security for Costs, Discovery, Judgment on Admissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction should be varied to permit use of frozen Hong Kong funds for legal and living expenses
  2. 2 Whether security for costs should be ordered against an overseas co-plaintiff where a local co-plaintiff exists
  3. 3 Whether judgment may be entered against the 1st Defendant on the basis of admissions in the defence

Ratio Decidendi

Security for costs against the 2nd Plaintiff was refused because the Statement of Claim disclosed no independent cause of action by the 2nd Plaintiff and a local co-plaintiff existed; variation of the Mareva injunction was permitted on the specific undertakings given regarding mainland property and title documents and because the defendant had accounted for funds and no convincing evidence of concealment existed; limited sums were fixed for living expenses and legal costs ($26,500 per month living; $300,000 legal costs to setting down) and judgment was ordered to be entered against the 1st Defendant to the extent of admissions; plaintiffs must pay costs of the discovery summons because...

Court Disposition

Summonses were partly allowed and partly dismissed; interlocutory orders varied; judgment entered against 1st Defendant to extent of admissions; costs allocated by order nisi.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against 1st Defendant to the extent agreed in the draft judgment (based on admissions)
  • Plaintiffs to pay the 1st Defendant's costs of the discovery summons issued 25 September 2001 (only costs of issue)