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

The court found that Fung & Fung improperly put the 2nd defendant's summons and supporting affirmations into the hearing bundles as if listed, concealed the existence of the consent summons and consent order adjourning that summons, and instructed counsel to prepare extensive submissions to argue discharge; those...

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
30 June 2016
Case Number
HCMP331/2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (mareva Injunction and Bankers' Order) / Decision on Costs
Outcome
Court found misconduct by Fung & Fung and held that the costs incurred by the plaintiff in responding to the 2nd defendant's submissions were wasted costs.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Order, Mareva Injunction, Bankers Order, Non Disclosure, Consent Order/adjournment, Solicitor Misconduct
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Bankers' Orders Solicitor Conduct Wasted Costs Order Mareva Injunction Bankers Order +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 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 (mareva Injunction and Bankers' Order) / Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fung & Fung's conduct in including the 2nd defendant's summons in the hearing bundles and failing to disclose a consent order constituted misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the costs incurred by the plaintiff in responding to the 2nd defendant's submissions were 'wasted costs' under section 52A(6)
  3. 3 Whether it is just to make a wasted costs order against the solicitors given the discretionary nature of the jurisdiction and need to hear the solicitor

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Fung & Fung improperly put the 2nd defendant's summons and supporting affirmations into the hearing bundles as if listed, concealed the existence of the consent summons and consent order adjourning that summons, and instructed counsel to prepare extensive submissions to argue discharge; those acts amounted to misconduct causing the plaintiff to incur costs which constituted 'wasted costs' under the governing provisions.

Court Disposition

Court found misconduct by Fung & Fung and held that the costs incurred by the plaintiff in responding to the 2nd defendant's submissions were wasted costs.

Orders

  • Wasted costs order: Fung & Fung to pay the plaintiff's costs incurred in dealing with the 2nd defendant's skeleton submissions and list of authorities for the hearing on 5 April 2016.