Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Continuation summons

Legal area

Court

17 Jul 2020

CHOW STEEL INDUSTRIES PUBLIC CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KO SUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2711/2017

The judge held that s21M interim applications are themselves the cause and the Thai Action is not the appropriate "cause" for linking costs; having applied the Compania Test and found for the Plaintiffs on the Continuation and Discharge Summonses, it would be unfair and a waste of resources to force Plaintiffs to pursue the Originating Summons to obtain costs. Accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order costs forthwith to the Plaintiffs and granted a certificate for two counsel.
19 Jul 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

The court dismissed the 2nd Defendant's summons seeking variation to obtain indemnity (or common fund) costs because the Plaintiffs' conduct did not exhibit special or unusual features warranting indemnity costs; the Plaintiffs committed a procedural irregularity in obtaining the ex parte injunction but there was no deliberate withholding of material nor were the Continuation Summonses entirely devoid of merit, and warning correspondence and delay alone did not justify indemnity costs. Costs consequences were apportioned: reserved costs of the Plaintiffs' Continuation Summonses were ordered t…
19 Jul 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The court refused to order indemnity or common fund costs because the Plaintiffs' conduct, while involving a procedurally irregular and unjustified ex parte injunction, did not present special or unusual features warranting indemnity costs; the Continuation Summonses were not entirely devoid of merit; delay and warning letters were relevant but insufficient to elevate costs beyond party and party; accordingly the Summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed except that costs of and occasioned by the Plaintiffs' Continuation Summonses previously reserved (if any) should be to the 2nd Def…
12 Sept 2008

YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP850/2007

The application to discharge the Anton Piller Order was dismissed because the defendants failed to prove a material change of circumstances or that discovery in the main action had removed the plaintiffs' continuing entitlement to inspect the electronic records seized; the Anton Piller Order therefore continues and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHOW STEEL INDUSTRIES PUBLIC CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KO SUNG AND OTHERS

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

YEARICH LTD v. MOSTOP LTD AND OTHERS