RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.

The court ordered the 1st respondent entitled to its costs incurred from 6 March 2000 and no order as to costs prior to that date; as to the 2nd respondent, the court exercised its discretion in light of the petitioners having achieved their primary objective (the independent enquiry) and ordered that each side bear its own costs. The court declined to decide the novel jurisdictional question whether s168A applies to overseas companies because it was unnecessary to resolve the costs dispute and was more appropriately determined elsewhere.

Citation
RE KING PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD.
Parties
Petitioners: Petitioners; 1st Respondent (company): King Pacific International Holdings Limited; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 October 2000
Case Number
HCMP1039/2000
Procedural Posture
Company Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance / Costs Hearing (decision)
Outcome
Costs: 1st respondent awarded costs from 6 March 2000; no order as to costs before that date; between petitioners and 2nd respondent each side to bear its own costs.
Legal Topics
Section 168 a Companies Ordinance, Jurisdiction of Statute, Discontinuance of Proceedings, Costs Following the Event, Independent Inquiry, Overseas Company, Securities and Futures Ordinance S37 a
Source Language
EN
Company Law Corporate Governance Civil Procedure Costs Section 168 a Companies Ordinance Jurisdiction of Statute Discontinuance of Proceedings Costs Following the Event +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioners

Petitioners

King Pacific International Holdings Limited

1st Respondent (company)

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Company Petition Under Section 168 a of the Companies Ordinance / Costs Hearing (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 168A of the Companies Ordinance applies to an overseas company
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd respondent is entitled to costs following the petitioners' discontinuance
  3. 3 How the court should exercise its discretion on costs where the petition's primary objective has been achieved

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered the 1st respondent entitled to its costs incurred from 6 March 2000 and no order as to costs prior to that date; as to the 2nd respondent, the court exercised its discretion in light of the petitioners having achieved their primary objective (the independent enquiry) and ordered that each side bear its own costs. The court declined to decide the novel jurisdictional question whether s168A applies to overseas companies because it was unnecessary to resolve the costs dispute and was more appropriately determined elsewhere.

Court Disposition

Costs: 1st respondent awarded costs from 6 March 2000; no order as to costs before that date; between petitioners and 2nd respondent each side to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • 1st respondent awarded costs incurred since 6 March 2000.
  • No order as to costs prior to 6 March 2000 in favour of the 1st respondent.