CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

The costs order nisi is varied: the 1st to 3rd defendants must pay the costs of the 9 October 2019 hearing forthwith; the plaintiff is awarded the costs of the 3rd defendant's discharge application (other than the costs of the 2019 hearing) to be paid by the 3rd defendant forthwith and to be taxed if not agreed; the plaintiff's costs of the defendants' discharge summons and variation summons otherwise remain costs in the cause; immediate taxation of the 2019 hearing costs is ordered; indemnity costs for the 3rd defendant's application are refused.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 199
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Chau Yuet Ching Brenda; 1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chan Bo Man William; 2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): B C Decoration Limited; 3rd Defendant (original Action): BMC Holdings (Int'l) Limited; 4th Defendant (original Action): BMC Construction Centre Limited; 5th Defendant (original Action): Yeung Chau Oi; 6th Defendant (original Action): Double Huge Investment Development Limited; 7th Defendant (original Action): Lau Kwok Wai; 8th Defendant (original Action): Huang Hsiu Yu; 5th Plaintiff (counterclaim): BMC Strategic Partners (Int'l) Limited; 6th Plaintiff (counterclaim): Talent Express Consultants Limited; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Pink Diamond Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Case Number
HCA652/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Application Arising From Interlocutory Applications and Counterclaim / Decision on Costs (variation of Costs Order Nisi)
Outcome
Costs order nisi varied in part in favour of the plaintiff; costs reallocated and immediate taxation ordered
Legal Topics
Variation of Costs Order, Discharge of Undertaking, Immediate Taxation of Costs, Dormeuil Freres Approach, Material Non Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Equity Variation of Costs Order Discharge of Undertaking Immediate Taxation of Costs Dormeuil Freres Approach +1 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chau Yuet Ching Brenda

Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Chan Bo Man William

1st Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

B C Decoration Limited

2nd Defendant (original Action); 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

BMC Holdings (Int'l) Limited

3rd Defendant (original Action)

BMC Construction Centre Limited

4th Defendant (original Action)

Yeung Chau Oi

5th Defendant (original Action)

Double Huge Investment Development Limited

6th Defendant (original Action)

Lau Kwok Wai

7th Defendant (original Action)

Huang Hsiu Yu

8th Defendant (original Action)

BMC Strategic Partners (Int'l) Limited

5th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Talent Express Consultants Limited

6th Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Pink Diamond Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Application Arising From Interlocutory Applications and Counterclaim / Decision on Costs (variation of Costs Order Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied to allocate costs of the 9 October 2019 hearing to the 1st to 3rd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the 2019 hearing was unnecessary and therefore defendants should pay costs of that hearing forthwith
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the 3rd defendant's discharge application and on what basis (indemnity vs standard)

Ratio Decidendi

The costs order nisi is varied: the 1st to 3rd defendants must pay the costs of the 9 October 2019 hearing forthwith; the plaintiff is awarded the costs of the 3rd defendant's discharge application (other than the costs of the 2019 hearing) to be paid by the 3rd defendant forthwith and to be taxed if not agreed; the plaintiff's costs of the defendants' discharge summons and variation summons otherwise remain costs in the cause; immediate taxation of the 2019 hearing costs is ordered; indemnity costs for the 3rd defendant's application are refused.

Court Disposition

Costs order nisi varied in part in favour of the plaintiff; costs reallocated and immediate taxation ordered

Orders

  • Costs of and occasioned by the 3rd defendant's application under the Summons dated 6 July 2018 to be paid by the 3rd defendant to the plaintiff forthwith, to be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for 2 counsel
  • Costs of the 1st and 2nd defendants' application to discharge the injunction under the discharge summons to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause save that the plaintiff's costs of the 9 October 2019 hearing in dealing with that application are to be paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants forthwith, with certificate for...