KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Costs were ordered to be in the cause because the interlocutory decisions (discharge and re-grant of injunction, continuation of second injunction, refusal of summary judgment and further injunctive relief) are intricately tied to the merits which must be finally determined at trial; accordingly interlocutory costs should await the final determination rather than be fixed now.

Citation
KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Komal Patel; 2nd Plaintiff: Jason Mark Cohen; 3rd Plaintiff: Harilaos Apostolides; 4th Plaintiff: Rocky Cape International Limited; 1st Defendant: Chris Au; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ching Yi Elsa; 3rd Defendant: Retribution Limited; 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chris Au; 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Komal Patel; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Jason Mark Cohen; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Harilaos Apostolides; 4th Defendant (counterclaim): Rocky Cape International Limited; 5th Defendant (counterclaim): Essence Investments Limited; 6th Defendant (counterclaim): Yew Kuan Cheong; 7th Defendant (counterclaim): Retribution Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 August 2014
Case Number
HCA183/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Post Judgment (costs Decision Following Interlocutory Judgment)
Outcome
Costs reserved to be in the cause
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Non Disclosure, Summary Judgment, Costs in the Cause, Mandatory Injunction
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Equity Costs Injunctions Freezing Injunction Non Disclosure Summary Judgment +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Komal Patel

1st Plaintiff

Jason Mark Cohen

2nd Plaintiff

Harilaos Apostolides

3rd Plaintiff

Rocky Cape International Limited

4th Plaintiff

Chris Au

1st Defendant

Ho Ching Yi Elsa

2nd Defendant

Retribution Limited

3rd Defendant

Chris Au

1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Komal Patel

1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Jason Mark Cohen

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Harilaos Apostolides

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Rocky Cape International Limited

4th Defendant (counterclaim)

Essence Investments Limited

5th Defendant (counterclaim)

Yew Kuan Cheong

6th Defendant (counterclaim)

Retribution Limited

7th Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Post Judgment (costs Decision Following Interlocutory Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be awarded interlocutory costs after injunction discharge and re-grant
  2. 2 Effect of plaintiffs' non-disclosure on costs orders
  3. 3 Whether defendants are entitled to indemnity costs given partial success on applications

Ratio Decidendi

Costs were ordered to be in the cause because the interlocutory decisions (discharge and re-grant of injunction, continuation of second injunction, refusal of summary judgment and further injunctive relief) are intricately tied to the merits which must be finally determined at trial; accordingly interlocutory costs should await the final determination rather than be fixed now.

Court Disposition

Costs reserved to be in the cause

Orders

  • Costs of the hearing and of the applications to be in the cause