LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

The summons was dismissed because the earlier costs order of 21 March 2013 had finally dealt with the costs of the proceedings, the issue of reserved costs had not been raised then, there was no clerical mistake to correct under Order 20 r 11, and the court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to grant the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: LU JUN (呂俊); 1st Respondent: YU QI (虞琪); 2nd Respondent: GUARDIAN PROPRIETARY LIMITED (formerly FCP PROPRIETARY LIMITED); 3rd Respondent: POTALA MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 4th Respondent: ASTROTEC COMPANY LIMITED (formerly Happy Dragon Technologies Ltd)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Case Number
HCCW282/2010
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Application (summons to Vary/allow Reserved Costs)
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st and 3rd respondents
Legal Topics
Reserved Costs, Indemnity Costs, Functus Officio, Order 20 Rule 11 (clerical Mistakes), Interlocutory Costs Vs Costs of Action
Source Language
en
Companies Law Civil Procedure Costs and Taxation Reserved Costs Indemnity Costs Functus Officio Order 20 Rule 11 (clerical Mistakes) Interlocutory Costs Vs Costs of Action

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LU JUN (呂俊)

Petitioner

YU QI (虞琪)

1st Respondent

GUARDIAN PROPRIETARY LIMITED (formerly FCP PROPRIETARY LIMITED)

2nd Respondent

POTALA MANAGEMENT LIMITED

3rd Respondent

ASTROTEC COMPANY LIMITED (formerly Happy Dragon Technologies Ltd)

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Post Judgment Costs Application (summons to Vary/allow Reserved Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to allow reserved costs orders after a final costs order had been made
  2. 2 Whether Order 20 rule 11 (correction of clerical mistakes) applied to permit variation of the costs order
  3. 3 Whether the court was functus officio and therefore incapable of revisiting its earlier costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the earlier costs order of 21 March 2013 had finally dealt with the costs of the proceedings, the issue of reserved costs had not been raised then, there was no clerical mistake to correct under Order 20 r 11, and the court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; additionally, interlocutory costs are not automatically subsumed within 'costs of the action.'

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st and 3rd respondents

Orders

  • Attendance excused for Official Receiver