RICH PROFIT CREATION LTD v. KO CHUNG LUN AND OTHERS

RICH PROFIT CREATION LTD v. KO CHUNG LUN AND OTHERS

The summons was dismissed because it was brought after the prescribed 14-day period, no application for relief from sanctions or extension of time under Order 2 rule 5 was made, no evidence or explanation for the delay was provided, and on the authorities and rules the court would not exercise any discretion to vary the absolute costs order.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2939
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant / Applicant: 3rd Defendant; 4th Defendant / Applicant: 4th Defendant; 5th Defendant / Applicant: 5th Defendant; 6th Defendant: 6th Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 2022
Case Number
HCA1207/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust and Costs Dispute Arising From Judgment and Post Judgment Costs Application / Post Judgment Application (summons) to Vary Costs Order, Application Dismissed
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Money, Costs Orders, Variation of Costs Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Civil Justice Reform, Procedure for Applications Out of Time
Source Language
EN
Trusts Civil Procedure Costs Equity Trusts of Money Costs Orders Variation of Costs Orders Relief From Sanctions +2 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant / Applicant

4th Defendant

4th Defendant / Applicant

5th Defendant

5th Defendant / Applicant

6th Defendant

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust and Costs Dispute Arising From Judgment and Post Judgment Costs Application / Post Judgment Application (summons) to Vary Costs Order, Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants could apply after the 14-day period under Order 42 rule 5B to vary the costs order
  2. 2 Whether the court had power and discretion to vary an order for costs that had become absolute
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions/extension of time under Order 2 rule 5 should be granted given no explanation for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because it was brought after the prescribed 14-day period, no application for relief from sanctions or extension of time under Order 2 rule 5 was made, no evidence or explanation for the delay was provided, and on the authorities and rules the court would not exercise any discretion to vary the absolute costs order.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs of the summons and action to be paid by the Applicants to the Plaintiff, to be summarily assessed