Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity for costs

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 997
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV61/2023

Court held that Ricky and D3–D31 must pay Jason's costs of the Action up to and including 15 August 2017; Jason must pay Ricky's and D3–D31's costs from 16 August 2017 to 13 April 2018; the Company must indemnify Jason for costs incurred up to 15 August 2017 taxed on the indemnity basis; Jason must pay the costs of the costs argument to Ricky and D3–D31; there is no order as to costs between Jason and the Company for the costs argument.
22 Aug 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 997
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV56/2023

Because the majority of independent shareholders validly voted to accept the $40 million payment and Jason’s continued opposition caused wasted litigation, Jason must pay Ricky’s and D3–D31’s costs for 16 August 2017 to 13 April 2018; Ricky and D3–D31 (and the Company) must pay Jason’s costs up to and including 15 August 2017; the Company’s indemnity is limited to costs up to 15 August 2017 and is to be taxed on the indemnity basis.
22 Aug 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 997
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2023

The Court held that (1) Jason must pay Ricky and D3–D31 their party-and-party costs incurred after 15 August 2017 up to and including 13 April 2018 because his continued opposition after the EGM caused wasted costs; (2) the Company must indemnify Jason for his costs of the Action up to 15 August 2017 (taxed on the indemnity basis) but not beyond that date; and (3) costs of the present costs argument are payable by Jason to Ricky and D3–D31 and there is no order as between Jason and the Company for those costs.
5 May 2023

廣東摩德娜科技股份有限公司 v. 摩德娜科技(香港)有限公司

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1615/2021

Leave was granted because on the low prima facie threshold the applicant had demonstrated an arguable defence and it was in the interests of the separate legal entity Modena HK to permit intervention where the controlling shareholder was the plaintiff; the company’s failure to defend was attributable to the conflict/control issues and misconduct, the statutory notice requirement could be dispensed with, and the applicant undertook to bear initial costs and indemnify Modena HK for any adverse costs orders.
5 May 2023

MODENA MACHINERY (INTERNATIONAL) LTD v. MODENA TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP367/2022

Leave was granted because on the face of the application the proposed derivative defence was prima facie arguable and it was in the interests of Modena HK to have the claimant-related majority removed from control of the company’s defence; the statutory notice requirement was satisfied or properly dispensed with; and the applicant undertook to bear initial costs and indemnify Modena HK for any adverse costs order, making grant appropriate despite contested factual issues which are unsuitable for resolution at this interlocutory stage.
12 Oct 2020

A AND B, AS THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED v. C AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1260/2020

The court has jurisdiction to make an in personam vesting order against former executrices in respect of foreign assets which they hold qua executrices; the Former Executrices had possession/registration of the YL shares and are accountable to the Estate; making the vesting order does not improperly pre-empt the SPC retrial given the uncertainty of outcome and the practical need to secure estate assets; the joinder/replacement applications are reasonably arguable under PRC law (Article 249) and the Administrators acted without undue delay; it is in the interests of the estate to grant Beddoe…
4 Jun 2019

LIN WEIQING v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP860/2019

The court granted the Norwich Pharmacal order because the plaintiff produced cogent and compelling evidence of concerted fraudulent activity, the disclosure of the intended defendant's address would very likely enable the plaintiff to issue and serve proceedings and thus reap substantial benefit, and the narrow request (address(es) only) was not unduly wide; the bank was to be indemnified for costs of compliance.
5 Dec 2018

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

The court held that Parts 3A and 3B could not be taxed against the 5th Defendant under the March 2014 order because those parts relate to appeal costs which were not covered by the First Instance Indemnity or CA Indemnity; Part 27 falls within the scope of the First Instance Indemnity and leave to amend to add Part 27 was granted; the court ordered payment out of HK$50,000,000 to the 5th Defendant because the funds in court plainly belonged to it and there were no sufficient legal obstacles to payment out by this court.
21 Mar 2018

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 627
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

The court held that the Plaintiff's costs under the March 2014 and November 2014 indemnity orders are subject to the court's scrutiny and must be taxed or assessed on a common fund basis; the Plaintiff is not entitled to an unrestricted full indemnity and solicitor-and-own-client taxation is not the appropriate normal route; the court directed taxation on a common fund basis, fixed payment of HKD150,000 for the CFA leave indemnity, a 14-day limit to commence taxation or be debarred, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the 5th Defendant's costs of the summonses on a party and party basis with cer…
15 Dec 2017

LEE PO NIN v. KWOK LIN HING

Citation

LEE PO NIN v. KWOK LIN HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2010

Interpreting clause 3 in its negotiating and factual context, the court held the clause indemnifies the defendant's liability to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action up to and including 12 November 2013 even if the adverse costs order was made after that date; accordingly the third party was obligated to pay the taxed sum of HK$480,705.30 and interest and failed to do so, constituting breach of the indemnity.