CHAN KAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI KIT AND OTHERS

CHAN KAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI KIT AND OTHERS

Where respondents withdrew their objection to the alternative relief and the petitioners obtained the winding‑up order, the petitioners were substantially successful and entitled to costs; the appropriate order was that the respondents pay the petitioners' costs up to and including 29 October 2012 on a party and party basis and thereafter on a common fund basis.

Citation
CHAN KAI YAN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG CHI KIT AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Petitioner: Chan Kai Yan; 2nd Petitioner: To Yuk Ling (Administrator of the estate of Chiu Che Kuen, Deceased); 1st Respondent: Leung Chi Kit; 2nd Respondent: Shiu Kwok Kuen; 3rd Respondent: Ng Choi Chi; 4th Respondent: Full Master International Limited; 5th Respondent: Choi Wai Kit; 6th Respondent: Lucky Ford Industrial Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 July 2013
Case Number
HCCW145/2012
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Petitioners awarded costs; respondents ordered to pay specified costs
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Costs Orders, Settlement and Costs
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Winding Up Just and Equitable Winding Up Costs Orders Settlement and Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Kai Yan

1st Petitioner

To Yuk Ling (Administrator of the estate of Chiu Che Kuen, Deceased)

2nd Petitioner

Leung Chi Kit

1st Respondent

Shiu Kwok Kuen

2nd Respondent

Ng Choi Chi

3rd Respondent

Full Master International Limited

4th Respondent

Choi Wai Kit

5th Respondent

Lucky Ford Industrial Limited

6th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners were entitled to costs after respondents withdrew opposition to winding-up
  2. 2 Whether costs should follow the event where relief was obtained by consent/withdrawal
  3. 3 Appropriate periods and basis for costs (party and party v common fund; indemnity costs)

Ratio Decidendi

Where respondents withdrew their objection to the alternative relief and the petitioners obtained the winding‑up order, the petitioners were substantially successful and entitled to costs; the appropriate order was that the respondents pay the petitioners' costs up to and including 29 October 2012 on a party and party basis and thereafter on a common fund basis.

Court Disposition

Petitioners awarded costs; respondents ordered to pay specified costs

Orders

  • Respondents (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents) pay the Petitioners' costs up to and including 29 October 2012 on a party and party basis.
  • Respondents (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents) pay the Petitioners' costs after 29 October 2012 on a common fund basis.