LAM YUI MING as a manager of Lam Lok Yee Tso registered under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) v. LAM YUI PUN as a manager of Lam Lok Yee Tso registered under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) AND OTHERS

LAM YUI MING as a manager of Lam Lok Yee Tso registered under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) v. LAM YUI PUN as a manager of Lam Lok Yee Tso registered under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance (Cap 97) AND OTHERS

Court found the 2nd Respondent objected on the wrong basis and persistently used that tactic to pressurise the 3rd Respondent, transforming part of the proceedings into adversarial disputes rather than purely trustee guidance; accordingly the 2nd Respondent was ordered to pay 75% of the Applicant's and 75% of the 3rd Respondent's costs on a party-to-party basis, with any unpaid balance to be paid from the Tso assets on a solicitor and own client basis; no order as to costs for the 1st Respondent.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2545
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; First Respondent: 1st Respondent; Second Respondent: 2nd Respondent; Third Respondent: 3rd Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 December 2020
Case Number
HCMP250/2017
Procedural Posture
Trust Proceedings (order 85, Rule 2) / Decision on Costs
Outcome
Costs order partly against 2nd Respondent with protection of fund for shortfall; no order as to costs for 1st Respondent.
Legal Topics
Buckton Classification, Costs Orders, Solicitor and Own Client Costs, Distribution of Trust Assets, Order 85 Rule 2
Source Language
EN
Trusts Costs Civil Procedure Property Customary Law Buckton Classification Costs Orders Solicitor and Own Client Costs +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

1st Respondent

First Respondent

2nd Respondent

Second Respondent

3rd Respondent

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trust Proceedings (order 85, Rule 2) / Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be paid out of Tso assets on a solicitor and own client basis
  2. 2 Proper Buckton classification of the proceedings (categories 1, 3 or 4)
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent should pay the Applicant's and 3rd Respondent's costs for wrongful objections and tactics

Ratio Decidendi

Court found the 2nd Respondent objected on the wrong basis and persistently used that tactic to pressurise the 3rd Respondent, transforming part of the proceedings into adversarial disputes rather than purely trustee guidance; accordingly the 2nd Respondent was ordered to pay 75% of the Applicant's and 75% of the 3rd Respondent's costs on a party-to-party basis, with any unpaid balance to be paid from the Tso assets on a solicitor and own client basis; no order as to costs for the 1st Respondent.

Court Disposition

Costs order partly against 2nd Respondent with protection of fund for shortfall; no order as to costs for 1st Respondent.

Orders

  • There be no order as to costs for the 2nd Respondent.
  • As between the Applicant and the 2nd Respondent, the 2nd Respondent is to pay 75% of the costs (including all reserved costs) incurred by the Applicant in these proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed, on a party to party basis.