WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v.CHIU CHUNG CHIU also known as CHIU CHUNG CHIU THOMAS AND OTHERS

WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v.CHIU CHUNG CHIU also known as CHIU CHUNG CHIU THOMAS AND OTHERS

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the defendants provided no satisfactory explanation for the one‑day delay and their conduct demonstrated dilatoriness; consequently there were no good reasons to vary the costs order nisi, which was made absolute, and the court summarily assessed costs at HKD 85,000 to be borne by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Citation
WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v.CHIU CHUNG CHIU also known as CHIU CHUNG CHIU THOMAS AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: OMAS; 2nd Defendant: FONG FU CHUNG (also known as FONG FU CHUNG ADDIE / FONG FU CHING); 3rd Defendant: WELL JOINT ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED; 4th Defendant: WELL JOINT ENTERPRISES (CHINA) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2012
Case Number
HCA1768/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (costs/interlocutory) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi; Summons for Extension of Time
Outcome
Summons for extension of time dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; summary assessment of costs allowed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs Order Nisi, Summary Assessment of Costs, Conduct of Parties
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Court Practice Extension of Time Costs Order Nisi Summary Assessment of Costs Conduct of Parties

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

OMAS

1st Defendant

FONG FU CHUNG (also known as FONG FU CHUNG ADDIE / FONG FU CHING)

2nd Defendant

WELL JOINT ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant

WELL JOINT ENTERPRISES (CHINA) LIMITED

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (costs/interlocutory) / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi; Summons for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended for applying to vary a costs order nisi
  2. 2 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied or made absolute and the quantum of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for extension of time was dismissed because the defendants provided no satisfactory explanation for the one‑day delay and their conduct demonstrated dilatoriness; consequently there were no good reasons to vary the costs order nisi, which was made absolute, and the court summarily assessed costs at HKD 85,000 to be borne by the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Court Disposition

Summons for extension of time dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; summary assessment of costs allowed.

Orders

  • Summons for extension of time dismissed
  • Costs order nisi made absolute