Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs on common fund basis

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2012

HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2009

The application was dismissed because the CCTV footage was inconclusive, the defendants (being in the surveillance business) should have known of and could have obtained the footage or sought an adjournment before giving their undertaking, there was no significant change of circumstances or newly discovered facts that could not have been discovered earlier, and the correspondence did not show abandonment by the plaintiff; accordingly the undertaking should not be discharged and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
24 Nov 2006

KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK v. VIJAY ESWARAN

Citation

KURT GEORG ROCCO RINCK v. VIJAY ESWARAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1516/2006

The Statement of Claim was struck out because it failed to plead or disclose any factual basis that QuestNet had declared dividends to which the plaintiff was entitled, the plaintiff lacked demonstrable capacity to bring the proposed derivative claim and had not sought the mandatory leave under s168BB/168BC, and the action was an abuse of process commenced in retaliation; accordingly the claim was unsustainable and dismissed with costs to the defendant.
7 Nov 2005

CHAU YEE CHAI HENRY v. CHAN YUK KWAN

Citation

CHAU YEE CHAI HENRY v. CHAN YUK KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP10/2004

Because the plaintiff succeeded in substance by securing withdrawal of the caveat and the defendant's abandonment of her defence, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the action including the hearing; indemnity costs are not justified on the facts, but costs are to be taxed on a common fund basis.
14 Aug 2003

LAM YIN FONG v. TSANG KAM CHEONG

Citation

LAM YIN FONG v. TSANG KAM CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1458/2000

The judge found the claimant suffered gross, permanent disabilities as a result of the defendant's negligence and awarded damages quantified by itemized assessment: general damages $900,000; allowed or adjusted specified past and future heads (medical, consumables, domestic services, future loss of earnings calculated with multipliers and discounts); excluded compensation for the portion of depression not attributable or reasonably foreseeable from the negligence; allowed parents' loss of society under s20C as a modest sum of $25,000; awarded total damages of $3,489,062.60 and costs to be tax…
24 Jul 1998

PANLEAD DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHUNG YEE FONG HELEN

Citation

PANLEAD DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHUNG YEE FONG HELEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/1998

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the defendant had paid the disputed sums into court and the damages, had disclosed substantial assets (a property worth about $3,000,000), there was no evidence of inability to pay costs, no execution had been levied, and the appeal could not be properly characterized as an abuse of process; accordingly, security for costs was not justified and costs were ordered to the defendant on a common fund basis.
18 Feb 1992

LOUIS PAO v. KO KAI FAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOUIS PAO v. KO KAI FAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/1990

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove the amount of debt claimed under the IOU: he kept no records, the trial judge reasonably preferred the defendant's evidence that the lessons and teaching promised were not provided as alleged, and it was unlikely on the facts that the defendant had taken the same lessons or number of lessons as the co-learner relied upon by the plaintiff; therefore the debt was not established and the trial judge's decision was proper.
28 Nov 1991

LAM NING v. YAM SAM LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM NING v. YAM SAM LEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2228/1989

The judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the 14 January 1987 documents were preparatory and there was never an intention that the 1st defendant would purchase; therefore no binding agreement existed and the registered memorial based on that document should be removed; costs ordered against the 2nd defendant on a common fund basis.
29 Nov 1990

CHOU KOU PIM AND ANOTHER v. THE PRUDENTIAL MALL LTD

Citation

CHOU KOU PIM AND ANOTHER v. THE PRUDENTIAL MALL LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/1990

The landlord had not complied with the lease‑specified procedure for assessing and claiming damages (no reinstatement, no attempt to agree damages, no referral to the nominated chartered quantity surveyor); therefore no valid claim existed to justify withholding the deposit and the respondents were entitled to the deposit less the agreed architect's fee of $2,000.
15 Nov 1989

RE BONDWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

RE BONDWOOD DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1100/1989

The court found on the balance of probabilities that Mr. Fung had excluded other shareholders, failed to produce proper accounts, diverted substantial sums to related companies and acted fraudulently; his conduct amounted to oppression under s.168A. The court granted injunctive relief restraining Mr. Fung and his companies from managing Bondwood, ordered discovery and tracing of related companies' records, appointed two independent managers (Daniel Kwok and Lawrance Chung) to run and reconstruct the business and entertain claims for rectification of the share register, and awarded costs perso…
13 Apr 1989

J.E. TAYLOR CO LTD v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER (LIQUIDATOR OF CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS LTD)

Citation

J.E. TAYLOR CO LTD v. THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER (LIQUIDATOR OF CRAWLEY INVESTMENTS LTD)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW168/1985

The court found no satisfactory evidence of an agreement or of the work claimed; even if work had been done it was not proven and the charges were excessive and unreasonable, therefore the proof of debt was rejected and the appeal dismissed with costs to the Official Receiver on the common fund basis.