AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS

The court refused to make no order for costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing because the plaintiff was substantially successful in obtaining leave to amend; the court exercised its discretion to apportion costs: reserved costs of the 6 September 2006 directions hearing to be costs in the application; costs of and occasioned by the amended replacement Statement of Claim to be to the 2nd defendant; plaintiff to have 80% of the costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing; and no order as to costs for the hearing on 12 January 2007.

Citation
AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. DOMINE KO CHEONG WING AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation): AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: DOMINE KO CHEONG WING; 2nd Defendant: SIMON FUNG SEE MAN; 3rd Defendant (discontinued): PANSY NIP SAU KENG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 January 2007
Case Number
HCCL20/2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application to Vary Order Nisi as to Costs Following Judgment (post Judgment Costs Variation)
Outcome
Order nisi as to costs varied and costs allocated as ordered
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Amendment of Pleading, Strike Out, Leave to Amend
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Commercial Law Company Law (liquidation) Costs Order Amendment of Pleading Strike Out Leave to Amend

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED

Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation)

DOMINE KO CHEONG WING

1st Defendant

SIMON FUNG SEE MAN

2nd Defendant

PANSY NIP SAU KENG

3rd Defendant (discontinued)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Application to Vary Order Nisi as to Costs Following Judgment (post Judgment Costs Variation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order nisi as to costs made on 23 November 2006 should be varied
  2. 2 Whether the correct order as to costs for the substantive hearing on 16 October 2006 is no order or an apportioned award
  3. 3 Allocation of costs for directions hearing (6 September 2006), the amendment, the substantive hearing (16 October 2006) and the hearing on 12 January 2007

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make no order for costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing because the plaintiff was substantially successful in obtaining leave to amend; the court exercised its discretion to apportion costs: reserved costs of the 6 September 2006 directions hearing to be costs in the application; costs of and occasioned by the amended replacement Statement of Claim to be to the 2nd defendant; plaintiff to have 80% of the costs of the 16 October 2006 hearing; and no order as to costs for the hearing on 12 January 2007.

Court Disposition

Order nisi as to costs varied and costs allocated as ordered

Orders

  • The reserved costs of the directions hearing on 6 September 2006 are to be costs in the application
  • The costs of and occasioned by the amended replacement Statement of Claim are to be to the 2nd defendant, to be taxed if not agreed