LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LTD. AND OTHERS v. SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LTD. AND OTHERS

LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LTD. AND OTHERS v. SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LTD. AND OTHERS

The judge found on the evidence and hearing that the plaintiffs had pressed the 5th defendant for disclosure and that the 5th defendant unreasonably failed to disclose a viable defence; consequently the wasted costs of the Order 14 application should be borne by the 5th defendant, with parties to be heard on the method of assessment.

Citation
LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LTD. AND OTHERS v. SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: LANDPAC IMPACT COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BEIJING CO. LTD; 3rd Plaintiff: LANDPAC COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD (TRADING AS LANDPAC); 4th Plaintiff: AMCO SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL LTD; 1st Defendant: SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHINA NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE TRANSPORTATION (GROUP) CORP.; 3rd Defendant: SAKOMA (HK) LIMITED; 4th Defendant: MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS (HK) LTD; 5th Defendant: HIGHSCOPE INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2001
Case Number
HCAJ204/2000
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action / Costs Hearing (application for Wasted Costs of an Order 14 Application)
Outcome
Wasted costs of the plaintiffs' Order 14 application to be borne by the 5th defendant; parties to be heard on method of assessment.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs, Order 14 Application, Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Admiralty Civil Procedure Costs Wasted Costs Order 14 Application Disclosure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

LANDPAC IMPACT COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BEIJING CO. LTD

2nd Plaintiff

LANDPAC COMPACTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD (TRADING AS LANDPAC)

3rd Plaintiff

AMCO SHIPPING INTERNATIONAL LTD

4th Plaintiff

SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LIMITED

1st Defendant

CHINA NATIONAL FOREIGN TRADE TRANSPORTATION (GROUP) CORP.

2nd Defendant

SAKOMA (HK) LIMITED

3rd Defendant

MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS (HK) LTD

4th Defendant

HIGHSCOPE INTERNATIONAL LTD

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action / Costs Hearing (application for Wasted Costs of an Order 14 Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 5th defendant should pay the wasted costs of the plaintiffs' Order 14 application
  2. 2 Whether the 5th defendant's failure to disclose a viable defence was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether costs should be quantified by gross sum or assessed in the normal way

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found on the evidence and hearing that the plaintiffs had pressed the 5th defendant for disclosure and that the 5th defendant unreasonably failed to disclose a viable defence; consequently the wasted costs of the Order 14 application should be borne by the 5th defendant, with parties to be heard on the method of assessment.

Court Disposition

Wasted costs of the plaintiffs' Order 14 application to be borne by the 5th defendant; parties to be heard on method of assessment.

Orders

  • Wasted costs of the Order 14 application to be borne by HIGHSCOPE INTERNATIONAL LTD (5th defendant)
  • Parties to be heard as to whether costs should be quantified now by way of gross sum assessment or assessed in the normal way