ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS

On the evidence before the court the 7th defendant, controlled by the 1st and 2nd defendants, acted dishonestly and in bad faith in opposing the continuation of the Mareva injunction; therefore plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs to be taxed and paid forthwith. There is no statutory basis to order costs...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant: ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER; 2nd Defendant: LEE KOK LAM; 3rd Defendant: WONG WANG GWYNETH; 4th Defendant: LEE KA PO, LANCY; 5th Defendant: FANTASTIQUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 6th Defendant: WARP POWER INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED; 7th Defendant: ESECUREPAY.COM CORPORATION; 8th Defendant: TRI-TEL LIMITED; 9th Defendant: ASIA TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2000
Case Number
HCA16778/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (mareva Injunction and Related Interlocutory Applications) / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications and Costs
Outcome
Plaintiff granted most interlocutory relief: indemnity costs against 7th defendant payable forthwith; disclosure orders granted; release from Anton Piller undertaking granted for specified documents; 7th defendant's strike out and fortification applications dismissed; costs as ordered.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Anton Piller Order, Disclosure Orders, Indemnity Costs, Directors' Liability for Costs, Strike Out Application, Undertaking Fortification
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Equity Company Law Injunctions Costs Mareva Injunction Anton Piller Order Disclosure Orders +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIA-PAC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Plaintiff

ING YIM LEUNG, ALEXANDER

1st Defendant

LEE KOK LAM

2nd Defendant

WONG WANG GWYNETH

3rd Defendant

LEE KA PO, LANCY

4th Defendant

FANTASTIQUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

5th Defendant

WARP POWER INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED

6th Defendant

ESECUREPAY.COM CORPORATION

7th Defendant

TRI-TEL LIMITED

8th Defendant

ASIA TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (mareva Injunction and Related Interlocutory Applications) / Interlocutory Judgment on Applications and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interlocutory applications should follow the event or be reserved
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs and immediate payment should be ordered against the 7th defendant
  3. 3 Whether costs can be awarded against non-parties (1st and 2nd defendants) for conduct through a corporate vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the court the 7th defendant, controlled by the 1st and 2nd defendants, acted dishonestly and in bad faith in opposing the continuation of the Mareva injunction; therefore plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs to be taxed and paid forthwith. There is no statutory basis to order costs against non-parties (1st and 2nd defendants) for the 7th defendant's opposition; disclosure orders ancillary to the Mareva injunction were necessary and granted; the 7th defendant's strike out and fortification applications lacked merit and were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted most interlocutory relief: indemnity costs against 7th defendant payable forthwith; disclosure orders granted; release from Anton Piller undertaking granted for specified documents; 7th defendant's strike out and fortification applications dismissed; costs as ordered.

Orders

  • 1. Costs of and occasioned by the adjournment on 29 March 2000 awarded to the 1st, 2nd, 4th to 9th defendants against the plaintiff.
  • 2. Earlier order reserving costs in respect of the application to continue and application to discharge the Mareva injunction set aside; plaintiff to have costs against the 7th defendant on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel, taxed and paid forthwith.