DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS

DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS

Because the plaintiffs initiated the summons against all defendants and the 4th defendant was obliged to defend, the work done by the 4th defendant became academic upon withdrawal; costs incurred up to and including 4 March 2000 are recoverable and the costs of the hearing are recoverable, both in any event to be taxed.

Citation
DYNAMIC WAY INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HO KUI CHEE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Dynamic Way International Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Dynamic Way Engineering Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Ho Kui Chee; 2nd Defendant: Ho Ka Cheung; 3rd Defendant: Focus Roller Shutter Limited; 4th Defendant: Forceway Industrial Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Case Number
HCA16149/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Stage (summons Heard)
Outcome
Leave granted to plaintiffs to withdraw the summons against the 4th defendant; plaintiffs ordered to pay the 4th defendant's costs as specified.
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application, Wasted Costs, Costs in Any Event, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Withdrawal of Interlocutory Application Wasted Costs Costs in Any Event 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dynamic Way International Limited

1st Plaintiff

Dynamic Way Engineering Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Ho Kui Chee

1st Defendant

Ho Ka Cheung

2nd Defendant

Focus Roller Shutter Limited

3rd Defendant

Forceway Industrial Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Stage (summons Heard)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs must pay the 4th defendant's costs after withdrawing the interlocutory summons
  2. 2 Which costs are recoverable as wasted and the appropriate cut-off date
  3. 3 Whether costs should be ordered to be paid forthwith or in any event

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs initiated the summons against all defendants and the 4th defendant was obliged to defend, the work done by the 4th defendant became academic upon withdrawal; costs incurred up to and including 4 March 2000 are recoverable and the costs of the hearing are recoverable, both in any event to be taxed.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to plaintiffs to withdraw the summons against the 4th defendant; plaintiffs ordered to pay the 4th defendant's costs as specified.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay the 4th defendant the costs of the summons filed on 26 November 1999 and the costs wasted by the withdrawal up to and including 4 March 2000, in any event to be taxed if not agreed.
  • Plaintiffs to pay the 4th defendant the costs of the hearing on 24 March 2000, in any event to be taxed.