Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directions summons

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2078/2017

The court varied the costs orders nisi: it treated the three sets of appeals as de novo justifying allowed preparation; it summarily assessed the Total Appeal Costs at HK$700,000 (reduced from the claimed HK$816,171.90), taxed down the 2‑counsel brief for the 11 January 2019 Directions Hearing to HK$50,000, ordered costs of the Direction Summons to be in the cause, and summarily assessed the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against the Petitioner’s appeal costs.
4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW171/2016

The court varied the costs orders: the Petitioner was awarded the costs of all three sets of appeals including reserved costs for the Directions Hearing, to be summarily assessed and paid; the court applied a broad-brush summary assessment reducing claimed time and fees, fixed the Total Appeal Costs at HK$700,000 payable within 14 days, ordered that Direction Summons costs be in the cause, and summarily assessed the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against the appeal costs.
4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2999/2017

The court accepted that the appeals were properly approached as de novo hearings and not mere regurgitations of the Masters' hearings, applied a broad‑brush summary assessment to reduce excessive claimed professional time and counsel fees, varied the costs order nisi accordingly, ordered that costs of the Direction Summons be in the cause, and summarily assessed the Total Appeal Costs at HK$700,000 and the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 (to be set off against sums payable to the Petitioner).
4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA136/2018

The court varied the costs order nisi: Petitioner awarded costs of all three sets of appeals including the reserved costs for the Directions Hearing of 11 January 2019; the Total Appeal Costs were summarily assessed at HK$700,000 payable within 14 days; specific responsibility for particular appeal costs allocated amongst certain respondents; certificate for two counsel granted (with one exception); costs of the Direction Summons ordered to be in the cause; the Costs Summons was summarily assessed at HK$5,000 and to be set off against the appeal costs.
4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA133/2018

The court varied the previous costs orders: it held the Petitioner was entitled to the costs of the three sets of appeals including the reserved costs for the Directions Hearing, assessed those Total Appeal Costs summarily at HK$700,000 (allowing two counsel generally but reducing time and specific fees deemed excessive), ordered the costs of the Direction Summons to be in the cause, and summarily assessed the trivial Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against the appeal costs.
26 Jun 2014

ARINA OFFSHORE JLT v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”

Citation

ARINA OFFSHORE JLT v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ164/2012

The Agreement showed AMI provided funds by way of a loan repayable from sale proceeds and did not create or reserve a proportionate beneficial interest; absent fraud or exceptional circumstances a vessel's registration is virtually conclusive of legal and beneficial ownership, therefore MMG was the beneficial owner of all shares at the time of the writ and the Jurisdiction Summons fails.

Hong Kong Case Law

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

ARINA OFFSHORE JLT v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”