CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD

The court found on the facts that the petitioner knowingly advanced numerous untrue, speculative or unsupported allegations, cynically used procedural mechanisms (including striking a deed under the Stamp Duty Ordinance) to deprive opponents of evidence and then made grave fraud and misappropriation allegations; that conduct amounted to an affront to the court and justified an order that the petitioner pay costs on an indemnity basis, notwithstanding allegations of respondent misconduct.

Citation
CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, CHEUNG SUK CHUN, FINTASY LTD
Parties
Petitioner: Petitioner; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 August 2013
Case Number
HCMP717/2006
Procedural Posture
Petitions (hcmp) / Decision on Costs / Costs Application
Outcome
Order made that the petitioner pay the costs of the petitions on an indemnity basis; order nisi that the petitioner pay the costs of this application.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Order Nisi, Striking Out Evidence, Misconduct in Litigation, Discovery, Fraud Allegations, Deed of Trust, Use of Stamp Duty Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Evidence Equity Civil Fraud Tax/stamp Duty Indemnity Costs Order Nisi +6 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petitioner

Petitioner

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petitions (hcmp) / Decision on Costs / Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for costs on an indemnity basis is appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to an affront to the court or warranted a proper sense of indignation
  3. 3 Whether late or piecemeal disclosure by the respondent justified the petitioner’s conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the facts that the petitioner knowingly advanced numerous untrue, speculative or unsupported allegations, cynically used procedural mechanisms (including striking a deed under the Stamp Duty Ordinance) to deprive opponents of evidence and then made grave fraud and misappropriation allegations; that conduct amounted to an affront to the court and justified an order that the petitioner pay costs on an indemnity basis, notwithstanding allegations of respondent misconduct.

Court Disposition

Order made that the petitioner pay the costs of the petitions on an indemnity basis; order nisi that the petitioner pay the costs of this application.

Orders

  • Petitioner to pay the costs of the petitions on an indemnity basis (previous order nisi varied).
  • Order nisi that the petitioner do pay the costs of this application.