KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

The application to vary the costs order nisi was refused and the costs order nisi was made absolute: because of the inordinate and unexplained delay, the generality and width of the specific discovery application and the limited extent of the applicant's success, Au must pay the costs of the plaintiffs and Essence forthwith, with Essence's costs summarily assessed.

Citation
KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Komal Patel; 2nd Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Jason Mark Cohen; 3rd Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Harilaos Apostolides; 4th Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Rocky Cape International Limited; 1st Defendant (hca183 Original); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim); 1st Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 1st Defendant (hca2063): Chris Au; 2nd Defendant (hca183 Original); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 2nd Defendant (hca2063): Ho Ching Yi Elsa; 3rd Defendant (hca183 Original); 7th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 3rd Defendant (hca2063): Retribution Limited; 5th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim): Essence Investments Limited; 6th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim): Yew Kuan Cheong; 3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim); 4th Defendant (hca2063): Prime Mark Group Limited; 1st Plaintiff (hca2063): Kudeta Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (hca2063): Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd; 3rd Plaintiff (hca2063): Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2016
Case Number
HCA183/2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory) / Chambers Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Application to vary costs order nisi refused; costs order nisi made absolute
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Costs Order Nisi, Summary Assessment of Costs, Delay in Bringing Applications
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Disclosure Specific Discovery Costs Order Nisi Summary Assessment of Costs Delay in Bringing Applications

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komal Patel

1st Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Jason Mark Cohen

2nd Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Harilaos Apostolides

3rd Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Rocky Cape International Limited

4th Plaintiff (hca183 Original); 4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Chris Au

1st Defendant (hca183 Original); Plaintiff (by Counterclaim); 1st Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 1st Defendant (hca2063)

Ho Ching Yi Elsa

2nd Defendant (hca183 Original); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim to Counterclaim); 2nd Defendant (hca2063)

Retribution Limited

3rd Defendant (hca183 Original); 7th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 3rd Defendant (hca2063)

Essence Investments Limited

5th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 1st Plaintiff (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim)

Yew Kuan Cheong

6th Defendant (by Counterclaim); 2nd Plaintiff (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim)

Prime Mark Group Limited

3rd Defendant (by Counterclaim to Counterclaim); 4th Defendant (hca2063)

Kudeta Limited

1st Plaintiff (hca2063)

Iconic Locations Singapore Pte Ltd

2nd Plaintiff (hca2063)

Iconic Entertainment Pte Ltd

3rd Plaintiff (hca2063)

Procedural Posture

Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (interlocutory) / Chambers Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied or set aside
  2. 2 Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in bringing the specific discovery application justified a costs order against the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the breadth and lack of specificity of the discovery application justified adverse costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the costs order nisi was refused and the costs order nisi was made absolute: because of the inordinate and unexplained delay, the generality and width of the specific discovery application and the limited extent of the applicant's success, Au must pay the costs of the plaintiffs and Essence forthwith, with Essence's costs summarily assessed.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order nisi refused; costs order nisi made absolute

Orders

  • Costs order nisi made absolute
  • Application to vary costs refused