WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

The court ordered indemnity costs up to 9:53 am on 11 April 2015 because the respondents sprang a second, late application on the last day for compliance with no prior indication, preparing extensive affidavit and submissions in advance, thereby conducting the application oppressively; the petitioner had sent an urgent email at 9:53 am and, absent immediate telephone follow‑up but given the respondents' subsequent clear email at 1:39 pm, the court fixed the cut‑off at 9:53 am and awarded indemnity costs to be summarily assessed with certificate for two counsel.

Citation
WU YANG v. DAYUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: Yang; 1st Respondent: Dayuan International Development Limited; 2nd Respondent: New Bright International Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Case Number
HCCW103/2015
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Costs Application Following Ex Parte Disclosure Application / Post‑hearing Costs Application (summary Assessment)
Outcome
Petitioner awarded costs of the ex parte application up to 9:53 am on 11 April 2015 on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel; costs to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith; lodging and filing deadlines imposed.
Legal Topics
Costs of Ex Parte Application, Indemnity Costs, Cut‑off for Costs, Extension of Time, Stay of Execution, Abuse of Process, Solicitor Conduct and Communication
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Companies Law Costs Injunctions Disclosure Orders Appeal Procedure Costs of Ex Parte Application Indemnity Costs +5 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yang

Petitioner

Dayuan International Development Limited

1st Respondent

New Bright International Development Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Costs Application Following Ex Parte Disclosure Application / Post‑hearing Costs Application (summary Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents should pay petitioner costs beyond respondents' compliance time
  2. 2 What is the cut‑off time for costs liability
  3. 3 Whether indemnity scale of costs is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered indemnity costs up to 9:53 am on 11 April 2015 because the respondents sprang a second, late application on the last day for compliance with no prior indication, preparing extensive affidavit and submissions in advance, thereby conducting the application oppressively; the petitioner had sent an urgent email at 9:53 am and, absent immediate telephone follow‑up but given the respondents' subsequent clear email at 1:39 pm, the court fixed the cut‑off at 9:53 am and awarded indemnity costs to be summarily assessed with certificate for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Petitioner awarded costs of the ex parte application up to 9:53 am on 11 April 2015 on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel; costs to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith; lodging and filing deadlines imposed.

Orders

  • Respondents to pay the petitioner the costs of the ex parte application (including the costs of the hearing) up to 9:53 am on 11 April 2015 to be assessed on an indemnity basis, with certificate for two counsel.
  • Such costs to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith.