CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

It was reasonable for plaintiffs to sue both defendants in the alternative based on pre-action correspondence and factual context; therefore an order shifting the 2nd defendant's costs was permissible. Considering the balance of hardship and the 2nd defendant's innocence, the court exercised its discretion to make a Bullock order so the 2nd defendant would actually receive reimbursement while permitting the plaintiffs to recoup from the 1st defendant.

Citation
CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China Everbright Finance Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Poseidon Treasure Limited; 1st Defendant: Chan Yung; 2nd Defendant: So Chi Yuk
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 December 2006
Case Number
HCA18300/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Post Trial Costs Application and Ruling
Outcome
Bullock order made in terms of paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs' summons; previous judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant upheld and claim against 2nd defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sanderson Order, Bullock Order, Alternative Pleading, Authority/agency
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Agency Commercial Law Sanderson Order Bullock Order Alternative Pleading Authority/agency

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Everbright Finance Limited

1st Plaintiff

Poseidon Treasure Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Yung

1st Defendant

So Chi Yuk

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Post Trial Costs Application and Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was it reasonable for plaintiffs to sue both defendants in the alternative?
  2. 2 Should the court exercise its discretion to make a Sanderson order or a Bullock order?
  3. 3 Which party should bear the costs of the 2nd defendant given the balance of hardship?

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable for plaintiffs to sue both defendants in the alternative based on pre-action correspondence and factual context; therefore an order shifting the 2nd defendant's costs was permissible. Considering the balance of hardship and the 2nd defendant's innocence, the court exercised its discretion to make a Bullock order so the 2nd defendant would actually receive reimbursement while permitting the plaintiffs to recoup from the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Bullock order made in terms of paragraph 2 of the plaintiffs' summons; previous judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant upheld and claim against 2nd defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs against the 1st defendant with costs (nisi) to be taxed if not agreed
  • Claim against the 2nd defendant dismissed; costs (nisi) awarded to the 2nd defendant to be taxed if not agreed