Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs and certificates for counsel

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2018

The appeal and applications to adduce new expert evidence were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary or did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold; the tax issue did not justify withholding the Settlement Sum given the contractual allocation in Clause 8 and factual circumstances; valuation and fire/safety issues could be resolved without the proposed experts or were irrelevant on the agreed contract terms; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with certificate for two counsel.
31 Mar 2021

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2560/2018

The appeal and the two New Evidence Summonses were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary or irrelevant to the issues properly before the court: Clause 8 and the SPA excluded Shenzhen Yabao from the sale and allocated benefit and liability to Giant Harvest such that a tax opinion now would address a contingent future event better litigated when actual liability arises; valuation of box office revenue can be determined by available facts or a comparables exercise rather than the proposed rental/property valuation expert; fire and safety compliance was not necessary to d…
12 Nov 2012

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1315/2009

The Order 14 summons was dismissed because the issues were lengthy, complex and involved genuine factual disputes; the defences were not frivolous and the matter required a trial rather than summary disposal; accordingly defendants awarded costs with certificate for two counsel.
10 May 2005

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6060/2003

The court held that Tai Fong's counterclaim and proposed defences amounted to a true equitable set‑off inseparably connected to Wing Hong's third‑party claim; on balance of factors, including the risk of parallel proceedings, potential issue‑estoppel and the seriousness of fraud/malicious falsehood allegations, it was just and necessary to restrain the arbitration and allow the court proceedings to proceed. Consequently the strike out/stay application by Wing Hong failed, the arbitration was restrained pending determination of TP Proceedings, TP Proceedings were transferred to the Court of Fi…
9 Nov 2000

ROSSLYN SERVICES LTD. v. MILIBOW ASSETS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ROSSLYN SERVICES LTD. v. MILIBOW ASSETS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3994/2000

The disclosure and variation applications were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were company books/records under BVI s.67, clause 11 did not entitle the plaintiff to the documents for the asserted purpose, and the plaintiff failed to satisfy the pre-requisites for court-ordered discovery under Order 24 rule 7; Order 29 did not provide jurisdiction to order the disclosure sought. The time extension was granted for 14 days and costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd defendants with a certificate for senior counsel.
1 Aug 1968

CHEUNG SO t/a SO KEE VEGETABLE STALL v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG SO t/a SO KEE VEGETABLE STALL v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1852/1968

The judge accepted the credible evidence of 1st and 2nd defendants that they were wrongfully registered as partners without consent and that plaintiffs failed to prove the defendants ordered the goods or were partners; therefore the prima facie effect of the registration was rebutted and the plaintiffs' claims failed.

Hong Kong Case Law

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

WOLIK LTD v. WING HONG CONTRACTORS LTD

ROSSLYN SERVICES LTD. v. MILIBOW ASSETS LTD. AND OTHERS

CHEUNG SO t/a SO KEE VEGETABLE STALL v. HUEY SIU YUET YIM AND OTHERS