CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. UBS AG AND ANOTHER

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. UBS AG AND ANOTHER

The court declined to apply the slip rule or otherwise revisit the costs order dated 20 July 2022 because there was insufficient reason to exercise its discretion and the matters sought (including immediate taxation) had not been raised at the original hearing; the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3786
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: Cosimo Borrelli and Chi Lai Man Jocelyn in their capacity as the joint and several liquidators of China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited; 1st Defendant: UBS AG; 2nd Defendant: UBS Europe SE (formerly trading as UBS Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 October 2022
Case Number
HCA1348/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (action No 1348 of 2019) / Costs Application – Application to Vary Costs Order / Slip Rule Application (decision)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Slip Rule, Taxation of Costs, Discretion to Revisit Costs Orders, Costs of Struck Out Claims
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Insolvency Slip Rule Taxation of Costs Discretion to Revisit Costs Orders Costs of Struck Out Claims

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited (In Liquidation)

1st Plaintiff

Cosimo Borrelli and Chi Lai Man Jocelyn in their capacity as the joint and several liquidators of China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited

2nd Plaintiff

UBS AG

1st Defendant

UBS Europe SE (formerly trading as UBS Limited)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (action No 1348 of 2019) / Costs Application – Application to Vary Costs Order / Slip Rule Application (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the slip rule can be applied to vary the costs order dated 20 July 2022
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to revisit the costs order
  3. 3 Whether immediate taxation of the costs of the application should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to apply the slip rule or otherwise revisit the costs order dated 20 July 2022 because there was insufficient reason to exercise its discretion and the matters sought (including immediate taxation) had not been raised at the original hearing; the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs order dated 20 July 2022 not varied