CONNAUGHT WEST LTD v. GLOBAL FIDUCIARY SOLUTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

CONNAUGHT WEST LTD v. GLOBAL FIDUCIARY SOLUTIONS LTD AND OTHERS

The court allowed the defendants' Amendment Summons and held that the defendants must bear the costs of and occasioned by the amendments (except costs covered by other orders); the plaintiff, having unsuccessfully resisted the amendment and having taken out an unnecessary Strike Out Summons, must bear the costs of resisting the Amendment Summons and the costs of the Strike Out Summons; no summary assessment of costs should be conducted and all costs are to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2934
Parties
Plaintiff: Connaught West Limited; 1st Defendant: Global Fiduciary Solutions Limited; 2nd Defendant: Foggo Michael John; 3rd Defendant: Tribune Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2019
Case Number
HCA525/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Applications (amendment and Strike Out) / Post‑decision Costs Stage / Directions for Taxation
Outcome
Defendants' amendment application allowed; plaintiff's Strike Out Summons dismissed; costs allocated between parties as ordered.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Process, Strike Out Applications, Allocation of Costs, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Amendment of Process Strike Out Applications Allocation of Costs Summary Assessment of Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connaught West Limited

Plaintiff

Global Fiduciary Solutions Limited

1st Defendant

Foggo Michael John

2nd Defendant

Tribune Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Applications (amendment and Strike Out) / Post‑decision Costs Stage / Directions for Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who should bear the costs of the defendants' Amendment Summons
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the plaintiff's Strike Out Summons
  3. 3 Whether a summary assessment of costs should be conducted at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the defendants' Amendment Summons and held that the defendants must bear the costs of and occasioned by the amendments (except costs covered by other orders); the plaintiff, having unsuccessfully resisted the amendment and having taken out an unnecessary Strike Out Summons, must bear the costs of resisting the Amendment Summons and the costs of the Strike Out Summons; no summary assessment of costs should be conducted and all costs are to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' amendment application allowed; plaintiff's Strike Out Summons dismissed; costs allocated between parties as ordered.

Orders

  • The costs of and occasioned by the amendments (except such costs covered by other orders made) shall be borne by the defendants
  • The costs of resisting the Amendment Summons shall be borne by the plaintiff