FREMERY ENRICH HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN MICHAEL CYRUS (formerly known as CHAN YUN YIN) AND ANOTHER

FREMERY ENRICH HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN MICHAEL CYRUS (formerly known as CHAN YUN YIN) AND ANOTHER

The judge exercised discretion considering that the defendant's concession was without admission and saved time, there was no significant or prejudicial delay, most interlocutory costs had already been dealt with by earlier orders, and the remaining costs were minimal; the March 'costs in the cause' order was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2011
Parties
1st Plaintiff: FREMERY ENRICH HOLDINGS LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: CHAN KAM PING; 1st Defendant: CHAN MICHAEL CYRUS (formerly known as CHAN YUN YIN); 2nd Defendant: SIT YAU KAM
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2024
Case Number
HCA347/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Summons / Hearing on Costs of Interlocutory Injunction Summons (post Concession)
Outcome
Costs of the interlocutory summons between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant ordered to be in the cause of the action; paras 1–4 of the draft attached to the 1st defendant's skeleton submissions adopted; costs of today's hearing awarded to the 1st defendant.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Costs in the Cause, Summary Assessment of Costs, Consent Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Interlocutory Injunction Costs in the Cause Summary Assessment of Costs Consent Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FREMERY ENRICH HOLDINGS LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

CHAN KAM PING

2nd Plaintiff

CHAN MICHAEL CYRUS (formerly known as CHAN YUN YIN)

1st Defendant

SIT YAU KAM

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Summons / Hearing on Costs of Interlocutory Injunction Summons (post Concession)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs of interlocutory injunction summons should be awarded immediately or be in the cause of the action
  2. 2 Proper construction of a 'costs in the cause' order made at an earlier return date
  3. 3 Whether defendant's delay in conceding warrants immediate costs against him

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised discretion considering that the defendant's concession was without admission and saved time, there was no significant or prejudicial delay, most interlocutory costs had already been dealt with by earlier orders, and the remaining costs were minimal; the March 'costs in the cause' order was correctly interpreted as referring to the cause of the action, therefore costs of the summons are to be in the cause of the action, but the costs of today's hearing are awarded to the 1st defendant, summarily assessed at HK$115,000 payable by the plaintiffs by 25 July 2024.

Court Disposition

Costs of the interlocutory summons between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant ordered to be in the cause of the action; paras 1–4 of the draft attached to the 1st defendant's skeleton submissions adopted; costs of today's hearing awarded to the 1st defendant.

Orders

  • Costs of the summons as between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant be in the cause of the action.
  • Order in terms of paragraphs 1 to 4 of the draft attached to the 1st defendant's skeleton submissions granted.