Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14 summons

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2024

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1073/2021

The Order Nisi is varied in part: P must pay the costs of and occasioned by the substantial hearings before Master To on 10 April 2024 (decision 11 April 2024); the remaining costs of the Order 14 Summons below are to be in the cause; P must bear the costs of the appeal; a certificate for two counsel is allowed where applicable; all costs ordered to be borne by P to be summarily assessed; and no order as to costs of the application to vary is made.
13 Feb 2015

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1257/2013

The court applied the ordinary principle that costs follow the event; plaintiffs succeeded on their Order 14 summons against the 1st and 2nd defendants and the defendants did not contest the costs claim, therefore the costs of and occasioned by the plaintiffs' Order 14 summons are to be paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two Counsel, and to be paid forthwith.
8 Feb 2011

JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

JONATHAN LIM v. SHE WAI HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA391/2010

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to bring a derivative action because the trustees in bankruptcy controlled the majority of the company's shares; accordingly summary judgment could not be granted, the Order 14 summons was unsustainable, and there was no basis to vary the costs order nisi — the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs.
8 Jan 2009

LAM YIU CHO AND ANOTHER v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM YIU CHO AND ANOTHER v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA463/2006

The court exercised its discretion: each party shall bear its own costs of the hearing on 20 November 2008 (including written submissions), and, on the balance, two-thirds of the costs of the Ord.14 summons are attributable to the unsuccessful heads and are to be paid by the plaintiffs; no order is made on the Ord.14 summons in HCA 2339/2007 as it was disposed of by consent.
8 Jan 2009

MASTER SUM LTD v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MASTER SUM LTD v. ASIALAND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2339/2007

Because the plaintiffs succeeded on some heads and failed on others and precise apportionment was impractical, the court apportioned two-thirds of the costs of the Order 14 summons to the plaintiffs and one-third to the defendants, and ordered that each party bear their own costs of the hearing on 20 November 2008 (including written submissions).
26 Oct 2006

WING TAI PLASTIC & METAL FACTORY LTD v. KA LUEN TOYS MANUFACTORY LTD

Citation

WING TAI PLASTIC & METAL FACTORY LTD v. KA LUEN TOYS MANUFACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA386/2006

The court treated the grant of a permanent injunction as constituting judgment on liability, exercised O.20 r.11 to amend the costs order to award the plaintiff party-and-party costs up to 4 July (with 10% of the costs of 4 July to form part of the action costs and 90% to remain costs in the inquiry), and refused to make other amendments sought as beyond the scope of the rule and requiring appeal or further proceedings.
23 Sept 2005

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2347/2004

The Master did not err in law nor act unreasonably in ordering that the costs of the Order 14 Summons and the Withdrawal Summons be costs in the cause and that the costs of the hearing on the Withdrawal Summons be to the defendants; premature issuance of Order 14 and the unnecessary length of the costs hearing justified the costs orders. The appeal is dismissed.
EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. YING LUN ELECTRIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. YING LUN ELECTRIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3438/1977

The 1st defendant failed to particularise in affidavit the factual basis for alleging endorsement irregularity or lack of authority by the 2nd defendant, and an allegation of failure of consideration is not a defence against a holder in due course; accordingly the Registrar's grant of unconditional leave to defend was incorrect and summary judgment for the plaintiff on the two cheques was proper.