RE THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES LTD

RE THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES LTD

Where an interlocutory provisional liquidators application is not plainly unjustified and much of the evidence will be reused at trial, fairness requires splitting costs: respondents recover costs attributable to the additional 12 days hearing in any event, while the remainder of interlocutory costs are to be costs in the cause; interim payment under Order 62 r.9A refused in absence of evidence and materials to justify amount sought.

Citation
RE THE PRUDENTIAL ENTERPRISES LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioners; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent (company): 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: Mr Patrick Lee; 4th Respondent: 4th Respondent; 6th Respondent: 6th Respondent; 7th Respondent: 7th Respondent; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2003
Case Number
HCCW594/1999
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs Following Variation Application of Costs Order Nisi
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied: 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents to recover costs of the 12 days hearing in any event; remaining costs of the provisional liquidators application to be costs in the cause; petitioners' variation application allowed to that extent; 4th respondent's application for immediate interim payment refused.
Legal Topics
Provisional Liquidators, Interlocutory Applications, Costs Orders, Interim Payment Under Order 62 R.9 a
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Provisional Liquidators Interlocutory Applications Costs Orders Interim Payment Under Order 62 R.9 a

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioners

Petitioner

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent (company)

Mr Patrick Lee

3rd Respondent

4th Respondent

4th Respondent

6th Respondent

6th Respondent

7th Respondent

7th Respondent

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Decision on Costs Following Variation Application of Costs Order Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of provisional liquidators application should be paid in any event or be costs in the cause
  2. 2 Whether part of the respondents' costs should be payable immediately under Order 62 r.9A
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory application was unjustified such that respondents should be penalised in costs

Ratio Decidendi

Where an interlocutory provisional liquidators application is not plainly unjustified and much of the evidence will be reused at trial, fairness requires splitting costs: respondents recover costs attributable to the additional 12 days hearing in any event, while the remainder of interlocutory costs are to be costs in the cause; interim payment under Order 62 r.9A refused in absence of evidence and materials to justify amount sought.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied: 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents to recover costs of the 12 days hearing in any event; remaining costs of the provisional liquidators application to be costs in the cause; petitioners' variation application allowed to that extent; 4th respondent's application for immediate interim payment refused.

Orders

  • Costs order nisi varied so that the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents are to recover costs of the 12 days hearing (excluding 13 December 2001) in any event
  • The remainder of the costs of the provisional liquidators application are to be costs in the cause of the Petition