SCANTY INVESTMENT CO AND ANOTHER v. BRILLIANT FUNCTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

SCANTY INVESTMENT CO AND ANOTHER v. BRILLIANT FUNCTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

The judge refused to vary the costs order nisi because the 1st–3rd Respondents had achieved material success by narrowing the issues (preventing pursuit of unfair prejudice relief in Hong Kong and, by undertaking, in the BVI); accordingly the Petitioners must pay the 1st–3rd Respondents' costs with a certificate for one counsel, and there is no order as to costs for the 7th Respondent in respect of the strike-out application.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1292
Parties
1st Petitioner: Scanty Investment Company; 2nd Petitioner: Good Regal Development Limited; 1st Respondent: Brilliant Functions Limited; 2nd Respondent: Rickthorn Limited; 3rd Respondent: First Prime Limited; 4th Respondent: Wang Lee Jung, Frank; 5th Respondent: Tam Ka Leung, Simon; 6th Respondent: Lo Chi Sum, Andrew; 7th Respondent: ACE International (B.V.I.) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Case Number
HCCW190/2018
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (s.327(3)(c) Cap 32) / Decision on Costs Following Strike Out Application
Outcome
Costs order maintained in material respects; Petitioners ordered to pay 1st–3rd Respondents' costs with certificate for one counsel; no order as to costs for 7th Respondent in respect of the strike-out application.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Strike Out, Costs Order, Unfair Prejudice, Jurisdiction/forum
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Winding Up Strike Out Costs Order Unfair Prejudice Jurisdiction/forum

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

Scanty Investment Company

1st Petitioner

Good Regal Development Limited

2nd Petitioner

Brilliant Functions Limited

1st Respondent

Rickthorn Limited

2nd Respondent

First Prime Limited

3rd Respondent

Wang Lee Jung, Frank

4th Respondent

Tam Ka Leung, Simon

5th Respondent

Lo Chi Sum, Andrew

6th Respondent

ACE International (B.V.I.) Limited

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings (s.327(3)(c) Cap 32) / Decision on Costs Following Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied
  2. 2 Whether Petitioners can pursue unfair prejudice relief in Hong Kong or in the BVI given the undertaking
  3. 3 Whether the 1st–3rd Respondents achieved sufficient success to justify a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The judge refused to vary the costs order nisi because the 1st–3rd Respondents had achieved material success by narrowing the issues (preventing pursuit of unfair prejudice relief in Hong Kong and, by undertaking, in the BVI); accordingly the Petitioners must pay the 1st–3rd Respondents' costs with a certificate for one counsel, and there is no order as to costs for the 7th Respondent in respect of the strike-out application.

Court Disposition

Costs order maintained in material respects; Petitioners ordered to pay 1st–3rd Respondents' costs with certificate for one counsel; no order as to costs for 7th Respondent in respect of the strike-out application.

Orders

  • Petitioners to pay the costs of the 1st to 3rd Respondents with a certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed
  • No order as to costs in respect of the 7th Respondent for the strike-out application