SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

The court exercised its discretion under RHC Order 62 to depart partially from the default rule that costs follow the event: it ordered costs of and occasioned by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Foxconn's summons to be dealt with as specified and apportioned the substantive hearing costs so that BYD Parties bear 80% of the costs of the substantive argument on paragraphs 1 and 2 (including the 14 April 2016 hearing); costs relating to expert directions were ordered partly in the cause and partly to Foxconn where BYD's application was redundant or unsuccessful, with taxation and certificates for two counsel where specified.

Citation
SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs by Original Action and Defendants by Counterclaim: Foxconn Parties; Defendants by Original Action and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim: BYD Parties; 1st Defendant: Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: BYD (H.K.) Co. Limited; 3rd Defendant: Golden Link Worldwide Limited; 4th Defendant: BYD Electronic Company Limited; 5th Defendant: Lead Wealth International Limited; 6th Defendant: Tianjin BYD Electronics Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2016
Case Number
HCA2114/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Amendment Application (interlocutory Costs) / Costs Decision Following Hearings on Leave to Amend and Expert Directions
Outcome
Costs orders made following exercise of discretion under RHC Order 62; apportionment applied between the parties for amendment and expert directions applications
Legal Topics
Amendment of Statement of Claim, Costs Orders and Apportionment, Expert Evidence Directions, Leave to Amend, Interlocutory Discretion
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Evidence Amendment of Statement of Claim Costs Orders and Apportionment Expert Evidence Directions Leave to Amend Interlocutory Discretion

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Foxconn Parties

Plaintiffs by Original Action and Defendants by Counterclaim

BYD Parties

Defendants by Original Action and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Company Limited

1st Defendant

BYD (H.K.) Co. Limited

2nd Defendant

Golden Link Worldwide Limited

3rd Defendant

BYD Electronic Company Limited

4th Defendant

Lead Wealth International Limited

5th Defendant

Tianjin BYD Electronics Company Limited

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Amendment Application (interlocutory Costs) / Costs Decision Following Hearings on Leave to Amend and Expert Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of and occasioned by the amendments should be paid by BYD Parties
  2. 2 How to apportion costs of the substantive hearing on leave to amend after partial success on Stage 1 limitation issue
  3. 3 Which party should bear costs of competing expert directions applications and how to apportion shared hearing time

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under RHC Order 62 to depart partially from the default rule that costs follow the event: it ordered costs of and occasioned by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Foxconn's summons to be dealt with as specified and apportioned the substantive hearing costs so that BYD Parties bear 80% of the costs of the substantive argument on paragraphs 1 and 2 (including the 14 April 2016 hearing); costs relating to expert directions were ordered partly in the cause and partly to Foxconn where BYD's application was redundant or unsuccessful, with taxation and certificates for two counsel where specified.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made following exercise of discretion under RHC Order 62; apportionment applied between the parties for amendment and expert directions applications

Orders

  • Subject to (2) below, costs of and occasioned by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Foxconn Parties' summons dated 30 September 2015 be to BYD Parties.
  • 80% of the costs of the substantive argument on paragraphs 1 and 2 of Foxconn Parties' said summons, including the 14 April 2016 hearing, be to Foxconn Parties.