ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Where multiple strike‑out applications were heard together on substantially identical evidence and arguments, the court will exercise its discretion to make a global costs order; the relative commercial value of companies and mere number of petitions struck out are not decisive. Given the respondents' success on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- ANTHONY JAMES HATTON v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
- Parties
- Petitioner: Anthony James Hatton; 1st Respondent: Dorothy Jane Furness; 2nd Respondent: Raphael Homer Echaluce; 3rd Respondent: Stephen Smout; 4th Respondent / 1st Plaintiff: Step By Step Limited; 4th Respondent / 3rd Plaintiff: Step Up Limited; 4th Respondent: Step Further Limited; 4th Respondent: Glory Sun Investments Limited; 4th Respondent: Step Onward Limited; 4th Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff: New Success Enterprises Limited; 5th Respondent: Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited; 4th Respondent: Rich Sun International Limited; 4th Respondent: New Sun Development Limited; 4th Respondent: Harbour Sun Limited; 4th Respondent: Gain Sun International Limited; 4th Respondent: Excel Sun Limited; 4th Respondent: Step Higher Limited; 4th Respondent: Sparkling Wine International Limited; Petitioner: Yearich Limited; 1st Respondent: Mostop Limited; 3rd Respondent: Craigside Company Limited; 4th Respondent: Low Soke Leng Cindy; 3rd Defendant: Entertain Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 21 December 2007
- Case Number
- HCMP842/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Companies Ordinance Petitions and Consolidated Civil Action (strike‑out and Costs Applications) / Decision on Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi Following Strike‑out Applications (final Decision on Costs)
- Outcome
- Order nisi as to costs not varied; petitioners' application to vary denied; costs of today's application awarded to respondents
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Prejudice Petitions, Strike‑out Application, Costs Order Nisi, Companies Ordinance S.168 a
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anthony James Hatton
Petitioner
Dorothy Jane Furness
1st Respondent
Raphael Homer Echaluce
2nd Respondent
Stephen Smout
3rd Respondent
Step By Step Limited
4th Respondent / 1st Plaintiff
Step Up Limited
4th Respondent / 3rd Plaintiff
Step Further Limited
4th Respondent
Glory Sun Investments Limited
4th Respondent
Step Onward Limited
4th Respondent
New Success Enterprises Limited
4th Respondent / 2nd Plaintiff
Insomnia Live Music Pte Limited
5th Respondent
Rich Sun International Limited
4th Respondent
New Sun Development Limited
4th Respondent
Harbour Sun Limited
4th Respondent
Gain Sun International Limited
4th Respondent
Excel Sun Limited
4th Respondent
Step Higher Limited
4th Respondent
Sparkling Wine International Limited
4th Respondent
Yearich Limited
Petitioner
Mostop Limited
1st Respondent
Craigside Company Limited
3rd Respondent
Low Soke Leng Cindy
4th Respondent
Entertain Company Limited
3rd Defendant
Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petitions and Consolidated Civil Action (strike‑out and Costs Applications) / Decision on Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi Following Strike‑out Applications (final Decision on Costs)
Legal Issues
- 1 Who was the successful party for the purposes of costs
- 2 Whether the order nisi as to costs should be varied
- 3 Whether the relative commercial value of companies affects costs
Ratio Decidendi
Where multiple strike‑out applications were heard together on substantially identical evidence and arguments, the court will exercise its discretion to make a global costs order; the relative commercial value of companies and mere number of petitions struck out are not decisive. Given the respondents' success on striking out four petitions on a common legal basis and the reasonableness of pursuing the other petitions, the existing order nisi awarding half the costs to the respondents should stand and not be varied.
Court Disposition
Order nisi as to costs not varied; petitioners' application to vary denied; costs of today's application awarded to respondents
Orders
- The order nisi as to costs is not varied
- Costs of the present applications are awarded to the respondents
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment