NICHOLAS TIMOTHY CORNFORTH HILL ALAN THORNTON RENNIE v. MATTHEW FINBARR O\'DRISCOLL WILFRED KEITH TIMSO

NICHOLAS TIMOTHY CORNFORTH HILL ALAN THORNTON RENNIE v. MATTHEW FINBARR O\'DRISCOLL WILFRED KEITH TIMSO

The Court of Appeal refused leave because the Judge below correctly exercised her discretion: the originating summons was procedurally wrong after winding-up, exposed officers to potential personal liability, was precipitous and unsupported by evidence, and thus the indemnity costs order was a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion not to be disturbed.

Citation
NICHOLAS TIMOTHY CORNFORTH HILL ALAN THORNTON RENNIE v. MATTHEW FINBARR O\'DRISCOLL WILFRED KEITH TIMSO
Parties
Plaintiff (intended Appellant): Nicholas Timothy Cornforth Hill; Plaintiff (intended Appellant): Alan Thornton Rennie; Defendant (intended Respondent): Matthew Finbarr O'Driscoll; Defendant (intended Respondent): Wilfred Keith Timso
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 1998
Case Number
HCMP1446/1998
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance S.298 a Receivership and Costs Dispute / Court of Appeal – Application for Leave to Appeal (judgment Refusing Leave)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; order below upheld
Legal Topics
Receivership, Provisional Liquidators, Debenture and Floating Charge Priority, Indemnity Costs, Procedure for Taking Possession in Winding Up
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Law Receivership Provisional Liquidators Debenture and Floating Charge Priority Indemnity Costs +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Timothy Cornforth Hill

Plaintiff (intended Appellant)

Alan Thornton Rennie

Plaintiff (intended Appellant)

Matthew Finbarr O'Driscoll

Defendant (intended Respondent)

Wilfred Keith Timso

Defendant (intended Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance S.298 a Receivership and Costs Dispute / Court of Appeal – Application for Leave to Appeal (judgment Refusing Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against an indemnity costs order made below
  2. 2 Whether the originating summons was procedurally appropriate for obtaining possession of charged assets after a winding-up order
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings improperly exposed provisional liquidators to personal liability

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal refused leave because the Judge below correctly exercised her discretion: the originating summons was procedurally wrong after winding-up, exposed officers to potential personal liability, was precipitous and unsupported by evidence, and thus the indemnity costs order was a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion not to be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; order below upheld

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Order for costs on an indemnity basis made by Le Pichon J. is upheld