YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS

YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS

The judge held that the respondents were the overall successful party because the strike-out applications were based on an identical broad legal basis that was substantially accepted; the dormancy or nominal value of the shelf companies is irrelevant to the merits of strike-out applications; therefore the order nisi awarding half of the costs to the respondents should not be varied and the petitioners' application to vary costs was dismissed.

Citation
YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Anthony James Hatton; Petitioner: Yearich Limited; Petitioner: Rustem Limited; 1st Respondent / Defendant: Dorothy Jane Furness; 2nd Respondent / Defendant: Raphael Homer Echaluce; 3rd Respondent / Defendant: Stephen Smout; 4th Respondent / 1st Plaintiff (consolidated): 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; 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; 3rd Defendant: Entertain Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited; 1st Respondent: Mostop Limited; 3rd Respondent: Craigside Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2007
Case Number
HCMP847/2007
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Petitions (multiple Hcmps) and Related Consolidated Action (hca 2712/2006) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi Following Strike Out Applications; Decision on Costs
Outcome
Application to vary the order nisi dismissed; order nisi as to costs upheld; costs of the day's application awarded to the respondents.
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice Petitions, Strike Out Applications, Costs Allocation, Consolidation of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Unfair Prejudice Petitions Strike Out Applications Costs Allocation Consolidation of Proceedings

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony James Hatton

Petitioner

Yearich Limited

Petitioner

Rustem Limited

Petitioner

Dorothy Jane Furness

1st Respondent / Defendant

Raphael Homer Echaluce

2nd Respondent / Defendant

Stephen Smout

3rd Respondent / Defendant

Step By Step Limited

4th Respondent / 1st Plaintiff (consolidated)

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

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

Entertain Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Mad Dogs Wanchai Public House Limited

4th Defendant

Mostop Limited

1st Respondent

Craigside Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Petitions (multiple Hcmps) and Related Consolidated Action (hca 2712/2006) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi Following Strike Out Applications; Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order nisi as to costs should be varied
  2. 2 Who was the successful party for costs purposes overall
  3. 3 Whether the nominal value or dormancy of shelf companies is relevant to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge held that the respondents were the overall successful party because the strike-out applications were based on an identical broad legal basis that was substantially accepted; the dormancy or nominal value of the shelf companies is irrelevant to the merits of strike-out applications; therefore the order nisi awarding half of the costs to the respondents should not be varied and the petitioners' application to vary costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the order nisi dismissed; order nisi as to costs upheld; costs of the day's application awarded to the respondents.

Orders

  • Application to vary the order nisi as to costs dismissed
  • Order nisi upheld: petitioners to pay one half of the costs incurred in the striking-out applications to the respondents forthwith (as per order nisi)