CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD

CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT LTD

The petitioner knowingly advanced numerous false, speculative and unsupported allegations, including grave accusations of fraud and misappropriation, and cynically used procedural mechanisms to deprive the respondent of evidence; that conduct constituted an affront to the court and justified ordering the petitioner to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Alleged respondent misconduct did not justify denying indemnity costs.

Citation
CHOW SAU HEI v. HO KEUNG YUEN, TURBO CHEER DEVELOPMENT 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
HCMP875/2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Dismissal of Petitions / Decision on Costs (order Nisi Varied to Indemnity Basis)
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, Abuse of Process, Fraud Allegations, Discovery, Strike Out Under Stamp Duty Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Company Law Equity Civil Litigation Indemnity Costs Abuse of Process Fraud Allegations +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 5 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

Costs Application Following Dismissal of Petitions / Decision on Costs (order Nisi Varied to Indemnity Basis)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order for indemnity costs is appropriate in these proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner’s conduct amounted to an affront to the court warranting indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether any alleged misconduct by the respondent should preclude indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner knowingly advanced numerous false, speculative and unsupported allegations, including grave accusations of fraud and misappropriation, and cynically used procedural mechanisms to deprive the respondent of evidence; that conduct constituted an affront to the court and justified ordering the petitioner to pay costs on an indemnity basis. Alleged respondent misconduct did not justify denying indemnity costs.

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 with a certificate for two counsel.
  • Order nisi that the petitioner do pay the costs of this application.