ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER v. DOROTHY JANE FURNESS AND OTHERS
Because the strike-out applications were brought and argued on substantially the same legal basis across the consolidated petitions, and the respondents were overall the successful party on that common basis, the court properly made a global order depriving petitioners of half the costs; the relative commercial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- ANTHONY JAMES HATTON AND ANOTHER 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: Low Soke Leng Cindy; 4th Respondent: Rich Sun International Limited; Petitioner: Yearich Limited; 1st Respondent: Mostop Limited; 3rd Respondent: Craigside Company 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; 2nd Petitioner: Rustem Limited; 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
- HCMP1208/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Companies Ordinance Petitions and Consolidated Civil Action (strike Out Applications) / Decision on Costs Application and Variation of Order Nisi
- Outcome
- Application to vary the order nisi as to costs declined; order nisi upheld and costs of today's applications awarded to the respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Prejudice Petitions, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders, Consolidation and Global Costs Orders
- 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
Low Soke Leng Cindy
4th Respondent
Rich Sun International Limited
4th Respondent
Yearich Limited
Petitioner
Mostop Limited
1st Respondent
Craigside Company Limited
3rd 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
Rustem Limited
2nd Petitioner
Entertain Company Limited
3rd Defendant
Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petitions and Consolidated Civil Action (strike Out Applications) / Decision on Costs Application and Variation of Order Nisi
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the order nisi as to costs should be varied
- 2 Which party was the successful party for costs purposes when multiple petitions are heard together
- 3 Whether the commercial value or dormancy of companies affects entitlement to costs
Ratio Decidendi
Because the strike-out applications were brought and argued on substantially the same legal basis across the consolidated petitions, and the respondents were overall the successful party on that common basis, the court properly made a global order depriving petitioners of half the costs; the relative commercial value of the companies does not alter the merits of the strike-out applications and the order nisi should not be varied.
Court Disposition
Application to vary the order nisi as to costs declined; order nisi upheld and costs of today's applications awarded to the respondents.
Orders
- Decline to vary the order nisi as to costs
- Uphold original order nisi: petitioners to pay half of the costs incurred in all the striking-out applications to the respondents (payable forthwith)
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