EDWARD LAU, WONG & LOU (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER v. YIU HO MING HERMES AND OTHERS

The 10th respondent acted unreasonably and obstructively in opposing the payment‑in and in refusing to accept service through his Hong Kong solicitors; the applicants' application under s.62 was properly made to resolve the impasse and the costs of the originating summons proceedings (including service out) were caused by the 10th respondent and therefore should be borne by him, to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation: [2021] HKCFI 3804
Parties: 1st Applicant: Edward LAU, Wong & LOU (a Firm); 2nd Applicant: Patrick Chu, Conti Wong Lawyers LLP (a Firm); 1st Respondent: Yiu Ho Ming Hermes; 2nd Respondent: Yiu Ching Kwan; 3rd Respondent: Yiu Ching Heung; 4th Respondent: Yiu Ching Hing; 5th Respondent: Yiu Ching Kum; 6th Respondent: Yiu Lucia Ching King; 7th Respondent: Yiu Ching Lan; 8th Respondent: Yiu Ching Man; 9th Respondent: China Ease Investments Limited; 10th Respondent: Yiu Ho Wing Terry
Court: Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction: Hong Kong
Judgment Date: 21 December 2021
Case Number: HCMP1047/2018
Procedural Posture: Application Under S.62 Trustee Ordinance for Payment Into Court; Ancillary Costs and Service Out Issues / Paper Disposal of Costs Following Consent Payment Into Court; Costs Application
Outcome: Applicants' costs in these proceedings, including reserved costs and costs of service out, are to be borne by the 10th respondent; costs to be taxed if not agreed; costs orders nisi that the 10th respondent pay applicants' and 1st–9th respondents' costs of the paper application.
Legal Topics: Section 62 Trustee Ordinance, Payment Into Court, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Costs Order Nisi, Inherent Jurisdiction
Source Language: EN

Trusts Civil Procedure Costs Service of Process Section 62 Trustee Ordinance Payment Into Court Service Out of Jurisdiction Costs Order Nisi +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Edward LAU, Wong & LOU (a Firm)

1st Applicant

Patrick Chu, Conti Wong Lawyers LLP (a Firm)

2nd Applicant

Yiu Ho Ming Hermes

1st Respondent

Yiu Ching Kwan

2nd Respondent

Yiu Ching Heung

3rd Respondent

Yiu Ching Hing

4th Respondent

Yiu Ching Kum

5th Respondent

Yiu Lucia Ching King

6th Respondent

Yiu Ching Lan

7th Respondent

Yiu Ching Man

8th Respondent

China Ease Investments Limited

9th Respondent

Yiu Ho Wing Terry

10th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.62 Trustee Ordinance for Payment Into Court; Ancillary Costs and Service Out Issues / Paper Disposal of Costs Following Consent Payment Into Court; Costs Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether applicants were entitled to pay the Sum into court under s.62 Trustee Ordinance
2 Whether the 10th respondent should bear the applicants' costs for the proceedings and for service out
3 Whether applicants' costs should be paid out of the Sum or borne by a particular respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Applicants' costs in these proceedings, including reserved costs and costs of service out, are to be borne by the 10th respondent; costs to be taxed if not agreed; costs orders nisi that the 10th respondent pay applicants' and 1st–9th respondents' costs of the paper application.

Orders

Applicants’ costs in these proceedings, including all reserved costs and the costs incurred on the service of the originating summons on the 10th respondent out of jurisdiction, to be borne by the 10th respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.
Costs order nisi: The 10th respondent do pay the applicants’ costs of this paper application, to be taxed if not agreed.