WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

Both Plaintiffs were ordered to bear 75% of the 1st Defendant's costs (varying the order nisi); costs reserved on 8 February 2019 are included but limited to costs of a directions hearing; the court summarily assessed those costs at HKD 430,000 and assessed the costs of the costs summons in favour of the 1st...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 920
Parties
1st Plaintiff: WANG LINPING (王臨平); 2nd Plaintiff: NIU LEI (牛蕾); 1st Defendant: HUANG KEQIN (黃克勤); 2nd Defendant: CHAN KIN SUN (陳健生); 3rd Defendant / 2nd Defendant (hca 373/2014): GRANDSOME INDUSTRIAL LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
HCMP632/2012
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Proceedings (s100 and S348) and Inherent Jurisdiction Applications / Application to Vary Costs Order (costs Summons) After Order Nisi; Summary Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Order nisi varied: both Plaintiffs to bear 75% of the 1st Defendant's costs, including costs reserved on 8 February 2019 but limited to a directions hearing; summary assessment of costs granted.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Variation of Costs Order, Interim Relief, Undertakings, Summary Assessment
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Judicial Review/inherent Jurisdiction Costs Assessment Variation of Costs Order Interim Relief Undertakings +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WANG LINPING (王臨平)

1st Plaintiff

NIU LEI (牛蕾)

2nd Plaintiff

HUANG KEQIN (黃克勤)

1st Defendant

CHAN KIN SUN (陳健生)

2nd Defendant

GRANDSOME INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

3rd Defendant / 2nd Defendant (hca 373/2014)

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Proceedings (s100 and S348) and Inherent Jurisdiction Applications / Application to Vary Costs Order (costs Summons) After Order Nisi; Summary Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to make both Plaintiffs liable for costs
  2. 2 Whether costs reserved on 8 February 2019 should be included and if so at what scale given that urgent interim relief was refused
  3. 3 Whether costs claimed were reasonable and whether a certificate for counsel was justified

Ratio Decidendi

Both Plaintiffs were ordered to bear 75% of the 1st Defendant's costs (varying the order nisi); costs reserved on 8 February 2019 are included but limited to costs of a directions hearing; the court summarily assessed those costs at HKD 430,000 and assessed the costs of the costs summons in favour of the 1st Defendant at HKD 10,000 with no counsel certificate, because the claimed amounts were grossly excessive and unnecessary given the lack of complexity and absence of Plaintiffs' submissions.

Court Disposition

Order nisi varied: both Plaintiffs to bear 75% of the 1st Defendant's costs, including costs reserved on 8 February 2019 but limited to a directions hearing; summary assessment of costs granted.

Orders

  • The costs order nisi dated 23 January 2020 is varied so that both Plaintiffs shall bear 75% of the 1st Defendant’s costs, including costs reserved on 8 February 2019 as if it were a directions hearing.
  • Costs under paragraph (1) are summarily assessed in the sum of HKD 430,000.