LAU CHI SUM v. LAU CHI LAM AND ANOTHER

LAU CHI SUM v. LAU CHI LAM AND ANOTHER

The court held that the Executors had provided a cashier order and evidence that an executor was present to authorize distribution so the Joinder Summons was unnecessary; the Plaintiff must therefore bear the costs of the Joinder Summons and the Plaintiff's solicitors had acted unreasonably and wastefully in issuing it, justifying a wasted costs order requiring the solicitors to repay the costs the Plaintiff was ordered to pay. The Originating Summons costs were awarded to the Plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed but with no counsel certificate and no hearing costs.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2771
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants/executors: Executors of the Estate of Lau Heung; Respondent/bank: Nanyang Commercial Bank
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Case Number
HCMP911/2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings Estate Administration / Decision on Costs Following Summons Hearings
Outcome
Court made costs orders: Plaintiff awarded costs of Originating Summons to be paid by Executors; Executors awarded costs of Joinder Summons to be paid by Plaintiff; wasted costs order against Plaintiff's solicitors requiring them to repay costs ordered against the Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Interim Payment, Vesting Order, Without Prejudice Communications, Wasted Costs Order, Costs Taxation, Solicitors' Personal Liability
Source Language
EN
Civil Trusts and Estates Costs Professional Conduct of Solicitors Procedure Interim Payment Vesting Order Without Prejudice Communications +3 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Executors of the Estate of Lau Heung

Defendants/executors

Nanyang Commercial Bank

Respondent/bank

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings Estate Administration / Decision on Costs Following Summons Hearings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to interim payment and whether a joinder/vesting order against the bank was necessary
  2. 2 Whether communications marked without prejudice could be treated as preventing the Plaintiff from acting on facts disclosed therein
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff's solicitors' conduct in issuing the Joinder Summons justified a wasted costs order and personal liability under Order 62 rules

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Executors had provided a cashier order and evidence that an executor was present to authorize distribution so the Joinder Summons was unnecessary; the Plaintiff must therefore bear the costs of the Joinder Summons and the Plaintiff's solicitors had acted unreasonably and wastefully in issuing it, justifying a wasted costs order requiring the solicitors to repay the costs the Plaintiff was ordered to pay. The Originating Summons costs were awarded to the Plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed but with no counsel certificate and no hearing costs.

Court Disposition

Court made costs orders: Plaintiff awarded costs of Originating Summons to be paid by Executors; Executors awarded costs of Joinder Summons to be paid by Plaintiff; wasted costs order against Plaintiff's solicitors requiring them to repay costs ordered against the Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Executors to pay Plaintiff's costs of the Originating Summons to be taxed if not agreed; no order as to costs of the hearing; no certificate for counsel
  • Plaintiff to pay Executors' costs of and occasioned by the Joinder Summons with a certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed