CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

There were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the ordinary rule on costs; the Court must take into account the Court of Appeal's findings that there was no breach of the undertaking and no breach of the disclosure order, plaintiffs failed to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, and material non-disclosure and available alternatives rendered committal inappropriate; accordingly plaintiffs must pay defendants' costs.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 520
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: Central Steel (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation); 1st Defendant: Chun Hei Man; 2nd Defendant: Chun Sin Wa; 3rd Defendant: Chun Ka Man
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Case Number
HCMP3396/2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Committal for Contempt Arising From Undertakings and a Disclosure Order / Costs Hearing and Decision on Costs After Trial and Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Undertaking to the Court, Disclosure Order, Costs Discretion, Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Costs Committal for Contempt Undertaking to the Court Disclosure Order Costs Discretion Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation)

1st Plaintiff

Central Steel (Macao Commercial Offshore) Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation)

2nd Plaintiff

Chun Hei Man

1st Defendant

Chun Sin Wa

2nd Defendant

Chun Ka Man

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal for Contempt Arising From Undertakings and a Disclosure Order / Costs Hearing and Decision on Costs After Trial and Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to displace the usual costs order
  2. 2 Whether and to what extent this Court may take into account the Court of Appeal judgment when exercising its costs discretion
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs proved contempt beyond reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

There were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the ordinary rule on costs; the Court must take into account the Court of Appeal's findings that there was no breach of the undertaking and no breach of the disclosure order, plaintiffs failed to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, and material non-disclosure and available alternatives rendered committal inappropriate; accordingly plaintiffs must pay defendants' costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs of these proceedings, including the costs argument and any costs reserved
  • There be certificate for two counsel