TIEN SAU TONG MEDICINE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD 對 張寶靈及另二人

TIEN SAU TONG MEDICINE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD 對 張寶靈及另二人

The court refused the plaintiff's application to substitute a no-order-as-to-costs for the interim costs order and converted the interim order into an absolute order in favour of the first and third defendants; the ordinary rule that the successful party is entitled to costs was not displaced because the plaintiff...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 375
Parties
Plaintiff: TIEN SAU TONG MEDICINE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LIMITED; First Defendant: CHEUNG PO LING (張寶靈); Second Defendant: TSANG KWOK KEUNG (曾國強); Third Defendant: WU CHI ON (胡志安)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
DCCJ5670/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (breach of Fiduciary Duty and Related Remedies) / Post Judgment Costs Application (written Submissions)
Outcome
Application dismissed; interim costs order made absolute in favour of first and third defendants; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Post Judgment Relief, Fiduciary Breach, Injunctive Relief, Accounting, Pleadings and Particulars
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Employment Law Fiduciary Duty Costs and Litigation Conduct Costs Orders Post Judgment Relief Fiduciary Breach Injunctive Relief +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TIEN SAU TONG MEDICINE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHEUNG PO LING (張寶靈)

First Defendant

TSANG KWOK KEUNG (曾國強)

Second Defendant

WU CHI ON (胡志安)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (breach of Fiduciary Duty and Related Remedies) / Post Judgment Costs Application (written Submissions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary an interim costs order to a no-order-as-to-costs order
  2. 2 Whether conduct of parties and the reasonableness of pleadings justify departing from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff achieved partial success that would justify departing from the ordinary costs rule

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the plaintiff's application to substitute a no-order-as-to-costs for the interim costs order and converted the interim order into an absolute order in favour of the first and third defendants; the ordinary rule that the successful party is entitled to costs was not displaced because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or partial success that would justify departure, and the plaintiff's conduct did not suffice to override the costs principle, so costs were ordered to be paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis with assessment if parties cannot agree.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; interim costs order made absolute in favour of first and third defendants; plaintiff ordered to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Application by plaintiff to vary interim costs order to no-order-as-to-costs dismissed
  • Interim costs order converted to an absolute order: plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and third defendants