MICHAEL YAP AND ANOTHER v. LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

MICHAEL YAP AND ANOTHER v. LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

The application for a wasted costs inquiry was dismissed because the applicants misread Ma So So, the asserted prima facie case and inferences from late withdrawal or consolidation were unsupported by evidence, legal professional privilege prevents disclosure of critical advice so doubt must benefit the solicitors,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1732
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca 1084/2011); 3rd Defendant (hca 447/2018): MICHAEL YAP; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 1084/2011): EKIM MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 1st Defendant (hca 447/2018): LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 1st Plaintiff (hca 447/2018): LEUNG TUNG HOI; 3rd Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 2nd Plaintiff (hca 447/2018): LEE CHEUK KWON; 4th Defendant (hca 1084/2011): RICKY TSE WING CHIU; 2nd Defendant (hca 447/2018): YIP CHI MOUN DENNIS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Case Number
HCA1084/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial (two Related Actions Heard Together) / Trial Commenced; Application for Wasted Costs Order Made on First Day of Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Order, Order 62 Rule 8, Summary Jurisdiction, Indemnity Costs, Derivative Action (s168 BC Companies Ordinance), Limitation Section 26, Legal Professional Privilege, Consolidation of Trials, Strike Out and Summary Judgment (order 18 R19; Order 14)
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Companies Law Limitation Law Professional Conduct Wasted Costs Order Order 62 Rule 8 Summary Jurisdiction +6 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MICHAEL YAP

1st Plaintiff (hca 1084/2011); 3rd Defendant (hca 447/2018)

EKIM MANAGEMENT LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff (hca 1084/2011)

LAI YIP DYEING FACTORY LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 1st Defendant (hca 447/2018)

LEUNG TUNG HOI

2nd Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 1st Plaintiff (hca 447/2018)

LEE CHEUK KWON

3rd Defendant (hca 1084/2011); 2nd Plaintiff (hca 447/2018)

RICKY TSE WING CHIU

4th Defendant (hca 1084/2011)

YIP CHI MOUN DENNIS

2nd Defendant (hca 447/2018)

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial (two Related Actions Heard Together) / Trial Commenced; Application for Wasted Costs Order Made on First Day of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wasted costs inquiry should be ordered under Order 62 r8
  2. 2 Whether a prima facie case alone requires the court to call on solicitors to show cause
  3. 3 Whether withdrawal of claims at a late stage or consolidation amounted to improper purpose or abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a wasted costs inquiry was dismissed because the applicants misread Ma So So, the asserted prima facie case and inferences from late withdrawal or consolidation were unsupported by evidence, legal professional privilege prevents disclosure of critical advice so doubt must benefit the solicitors, the Court of Appeal had found a serious question to be tried in the derivative claim, and in all the circumstances it is not fair or justified to order an inquiry; exercise of discretion required refusal and costs awarded to the Losing Parties.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs of the Application to be paid by the Winning Parties to the Losing Parties, to be taxed if not agreed