KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

The court held that although the factors in Bradford Dyers weighed towards complexity, the case was adequately conductible with two counsel and Kader's reliance on a third counsel to compensate for under-resourced instructing solicitors did not justify awarding a certificate for three counsel; interest was awarded as agreed by the parties.

Citation
KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant in Related Matters: GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.; Defendant / Plaintiff in Related Matters: KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 November 1996
Case Number
HCA477/1991
Procedural Posture
High Court (chambers) – Post Judgment Applications Re Interest and Counsel Certificate / Application Heard 8 November 1996; Judgment Handed Down 11 November 1996 (post Judgment Application)
Outcome
Interest awarded as agreed; certificate for three counsel refused and limited to two counsel per party; Kader ordered to pay costs of the application (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Certificate for Third Counsel, Judgment Interest, Costs of Application, Adequacy of Representation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Interest Advocates' Fees Commercial Litigation Certificate for Third Counsel Judgment Interest Costs of Application +1 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GALCO INTERNATIONAL TOYS N.V.

Plaintiff / Defendant in Related Matters

KADER INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD.

Defendant / Plaintiff in Related Matters

Procedural Posture

High Court (chambers) – Post Judgment Applications Re Interest and Counsel Certificate / Application Heard 8 November 1996; Judgment Handed Down 11 November 1996 (post Judgment Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interest should be awarded on sums found due and at what rate
  2. 2 Whether Kader should be granted a certificate for three counsel payable by the opponent
  3. 3 Whether insufficiency of instructing solicitors justifies employing and taxing a third counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the factors in Bradford Dyers weighed towards complexity, the case was adequately conductible with two counsel and Kader's reliance on a third counsel to compensate for under-resourced instructing solicitors did not justify awarding a certificate for three counsel; interest was awarded as agreed by the parties.

Court Disposition

Interest awarded as agreed; certificate for three counsel refused and limited to two counsel per party; Kader ordered to pay costs of the application (order nisi).

Orders

  • Interest on sums due to Kader to run from 29 November 1990 to date of judgment at 1% above prime; from date of judgment interest to run at judgment rate.
  • Certificate granted for two counsel for each party; application for a certificate for three counsel by Kader refused.