FOCUS INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND ANOTHER

FOCUS INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND ANOTHER

The Court found the Plaintiffs were reasonable to insist on inspection and only by 28 April 2022 could the Plaintiffs have agreed to set aside the interlocutory judgment in relation to the four containers; D2 should therefore bear the Plaintiffs' costs of D2's Summons but on the District Court scale as the claim size made High Court scale disproportionate; the Plaintiffs' Summons unnecessarily duplicated existing applications so nominal costs were awarded to the Defendants with 50% of that summons' costs to be in the cause.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1278
Parties
1st Plaintiff: FOCUS INDUSTRIES; 2nd Plaintiff: FORTUNE TECHNOLOGY LTD; 1st Defendant: BLUE ANCHOR LINE; 2nd Defendant: TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Case Number
HCAJ50/2021
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action (misdelivery of Containers) / Costs Hearing Following Orders Setting Aside Part of Interlocutory Judgment and Case Management Directions
Outcome
Part orders granted as agreed; costs allocated: D2 to pay Plaintiffs' costs for D2's Summons on District Court scale; Plaintiffs to pay Defendants costs for Plaintiffs' Summons in specified amounts; net payment ordered from D2 to Plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Judgment, Set Aside, Costs Assessment, Inspection of Goods, Quantification of Damages, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Admiralty Civil Procedure Costs Interlocutory Judgment Set Aside Costs Assessment Inspection of Goods Quantification of Damages +1 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FOCUS INDUSTRIES

1st Plaintiff

FORTUNE TECHNOLOGY LTD

2nd Plaintiff

BLUE ANCHOR LINE

1st Defendant

TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action (misdelivery of Containers) / Costs Hearing Following Orders Setting Aside Part of Interlocutory Judgment and Case Management Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory judgment should be set aside in whole or in part
  2. 2 Which party should bear costs of the set-aside application
  3. 3 Appropriate costs scale and quantum given size of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the Plaintiffs were reasonable to insist on inspection and only by 28 April 2022 could the Plaintiffs have agreed to set aside the interlocutory judgment in relation to the four containers; D2 should therefore bear the Plaintiffs' costs of D2's Summons but on the District Court scale as the claim size made High Court scale disproportionate; the Plaintiffs' Summons unnecessarily duplicated existing applications so nominal costs were awarded to the Defendants with 50% of that summons' costs to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Part orders granted as agreed; costs allocated: D2 to pay Plaintiffs' costs for D2's Summons on District Court scale; Plaintiffs to pay Defendants costs for Plaintiffs' Summons in specified amounts; net payment ordered from D2 to Plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Costs of D2's Summons (including costs of this hearing) to the Plaintiffs, summarily assessed at $180,000 (District Court scale)
  • In respect of the Plaintiffs' Summons the Plaintiffs pay costs of $10,400 to the Defendants; 50% of the costs of the Plaintiffs' Summons shall be in the cause, provided that if the Plaintiffs eventually get costs it shall be on the District Court scale