LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER

LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER

Both parties share responsibility for the striking-out application; because the 1st Defendant should have applied to convert rather than to strike out and the Plaintiff was not to be penalised for commencing by originating summons given the circumstances and guidance from the court, no order as to costs was made for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Link Fish Import & Export S.L.; 1st Defendant: Multiply Import & Export HK Limited; 2nd Defendant: Britaway WB Asia Pacific Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2016
Case Number
HCMP331/2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings / Costs Hearing/chambers Decision on Costs
Outcome
No order as to costs for the 1st Defendant's striking-out summons; conversion to an action begun by writ ordered; costs of the conversion to be costs in the cause; directions given for exchange of pleadings and discovery.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Originating Summons Vs Writ, Striking Out, Conversion of Proceedings, Acknowledgment of Service, Default Judgment, Pleadings and Discovery
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Company Law Fraud Mareva Injunction Originating Summons Vs Writ Striking Out +4 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Link Fish Import & Export S.L.

Plaintiff

Multiply Import & Export HK Limited

1st Defendant

Britaway WB Asia Pacific Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings / Costs Hearing/chambers Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant's striking-out summons to strike out the originating summons was properly brought
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's originating summons should be converted to an action begun by writ
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the conversion application

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties share responsibility for the striking-out application; because the 1st Defendant should have applied to convert rather than to strike out and the Plaintiff was not to be penalised for commencing by originating summons given the circumstances and guidance from the court, no order as to costs was made for the striking-out summons and the conversion was ordered with costs to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs for the 1st Defendant's striking-out summons; conversion to an action begun by writ ordered; costs of the conversion to be costs in the cause; directions given for exchange of pleadings and discovery.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in respect of the 1st Defendant's striking-out summons dated 30 March 2016.
  • The action shall continue as if commenced by writ; the Plaintiff's conversion summons is granted.