CHENG KA YAN AND OTHERS v. GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD AND OTHERS

CHENG KA YAN AND OTHERS v. GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD AND OTHERS

The court refused to vary the costs nisi to indemnity costs because the plaintiffs' conduct and the nature of their case did not disclose the necessary special or unusual features; although the plaintiffs re-ran previously rejected arguments this alone was insufficient and there was a plausible reason to resist...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1577
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHENG KA YAN; 2nd Plaintiff: HOU QIN; 3rd Plaintiff: LIU ZHAOLU; 1st Defendant: GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.; 2nd Defendant: PETER JAMES GREAVES; 3rd Defendant: YAT KIT JONG; 4th Defendant: GOLD TOPMONT LIMITED; 5th Defendant: BILLION TREND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 6th Defendant: PERFECT ELITE VENTURES LIMITED; 7th Defendant: SERICA AGENCY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 August 2024
Case Number
HCA1607/2022
Procedural Posture
Action No 1607 of 2022 Civil Action (striking Out and Costs) / Paper Disposal Decision on Summons to Vary Costs Order (application and Written Submissions; Hearing Determined on Paper)
Outcome
Summons dismissed; application for indemnity costs refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Striking Out, Re Argument of Issues, Oral Collateral Contract, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Civil Litigation Indemnity Costs Striking Out Re Argument of Issues Oral Collateral Contract +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHENG KA YAN

1st Plaintiff

HOU QIN

2nd Plaintiff

LIU ZHAOLU

3rd Plaintiff

GRAND XI INVESTMENTS PTE. LTD.

1st Defendant

PETER JAMES GREAVES

2nd Defendant

YAT KIT JONG

3rd Defendant

GOLD TOPMONT LIMITED

4th Defendant

BILLION TREND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

5th Defendant

PERFECT ELITE VENTURES LIMITED

6th Defendant

SERICA AGENCY LIMITED

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action No 1607 of 2022 Civil Action (striking Out and Costs) / Paper Disposal Decision on Summons to Vary Costs Order (application and Written Submissions; Hearing Determined on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to costs on an indemnity basis
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' conduct or the nature of their case disclosed special or unusual features justifying indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether re-running previously rejected arguments or reliance on transcripts justifies indemnity costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the costs nisi to indemnity costs because the plaintiffs' conduct and the nature of their case did not disclose the necessary special or unusual features; although the plaintiffs re-ran previously rejected arguments this alone was insufficient and there was a plausible reason to resist summary disposal (alleged oral promise), therefore indemnity costs were not appropriate and costs should follow the event in the usual way.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; application for indemnity costs refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.
  • Defendants' application for indemnity costs refused.