CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LTD (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) v. CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LTD (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) v. CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

The application for summary assessment was dismissed because the costs orders were made on nisi and no application under O 42 r 5B was made within 14 days, rendering the Court functus; additionally the complexity and overlapping nature of the costs required taxation and apportionment rather than summary assessment.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 192
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 309/2022); 2nd Respondent (hccw 30/2022): Dingway Investment Limited; 1st Defendant (hca 309/2022): CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (hca 309/2022): ZENG YUQI; 3rd Defendant (hca 309/2022); Party to HCCW 30/2022: SZE WAI SUEN; 4th Defendant (hca 309/2022): REGA CENTER LLC; 5th Defendant (hca 309/2022): REGA CENTER MIAMI HOLDINGS LLC (formerly known as CCCC INTERNATIONAL USA LLC); 6th Defendant (hca 309/2022): GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED; 7th Defendant (hca 309/2022): REGA HOLDINGS LIMITED; 8th Defendant (hca 309/2022): CCCC MIAMI BEACH LLC; 9th Defendant (hca 309/2022): MEI LI (also known as LI MEI); Petitioner (hccw 30/2022): CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LIMITED (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION); 1st Respondent (hccw 30/2022): CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2024
Case Number
HCCW30/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (hca 309/2022) and Companies (winding Up) (hccw 30/2022) / Decision on Application for Summary Assessment of Costs (heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Functus Officio, Costs Apportionment, Orders Nisi, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Costs Summary Assessment of Costs Functus Officio Costs Apportionment Orders Nisi Taxation of Costs

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

Parties

Dingway Investment Limited

Plaintiff (hca 309/2022); 2nd Respondent (hccw 30/2022)

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca 309/2022)

ZENG YUQI

2nd Defendant (hca 309/2022)

SZE WAI SUEN

3rd Defendant (hca 309/2022); Party to HCCW 30/2022

REGA CENTER LLC

4th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

REGA CENTER MIAMI HOLDINGS LLC (formerly known as CCCC INTERNATIONAL USA LLC)

5th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED

6th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

REGA HOLDINGS LIMITED

7th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

CCCC MIAMI BEACH LLC

8th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

MEI LI (also known as LI MEI)

9th Defendant (hca 309/2022)

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LIMITED (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)

Petitioner (hccw 30/2022)

CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent (hccw 30/2022)

Procedural Posture

Civil (hca 309/2022) and Companies (winding Up) (hccw 30/2022) / Decision on Application for Summary Assessment of Costs (heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court could order summary assessment of costs after costs orders were made on nisi without a timely application under Order 42 r 5B
  2. 2 Whether the court is functus officio in relation to the costs orders given the absence of an application within 14 days under O 42 r 5B
  3. 3 Whether summary assessment was appropriate given complexity and overlapping costs requiring apportionment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary assessment was dismissed because the costs orders were made on nisi and no application under O 42 r 5B was made within 14 days, rendering the Court functus; additionally the complexity and overlapping nature of the costs required taxation and apportionment rather than summary assessment.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary assessment of costs dismissed
  • Costs orders to be taxed in accordance with normal practice