Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contribution notice

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2024

CHAN KON FUNG v. GALLOP PIONEER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1357/2011

The judge found PRCYT and Gallop to be overall winners and that Chan unreasonably persisted in contesting the determinative Categorisation Issue; accordingly Chan was ordered to pay the specified costs of PRCYT, Gallop and the costs arising from HKPS’s contribution notice and HKYT’s counterclaim, with specified certificates for two counsel and with all costs to be taxed if not agreed; no order was made between PRCYT and the other defendants (except in relation to Chan) and no certificate was allowed to cover the costs hearing.
27 Jun 2016

YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3018/2014

The summons was dismissed because paragraph 8 of the consent order concerned only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant so the 2nd defendant lacked locus to re-open it; the sealed consent order is binding and the court, being functus officio, will not vary it on the asserted basis of lack of internal authority; any grievance lies against the manager or former solicitors; inherent jurisdiction did not justify reopening the order; costs awarded to plaintiff and 1st defendant on an indemnity basis.
19 Sept 2013

HUA TYAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUA TYAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2012

The court held that the 1st defendant, having succeeded on appeal, is entitled to its costs of the appeal and below; the plaintiff may pursue repayment from the 2nd defendant by a Bullock Order; judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs (including those occasioned by joinder of the 1st defendant); the 1st defendant is entitled to the costs of the Contribution Notice against the 2nd defendant.
29 Sept 2010

WISECAL LTD v. CONWELL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WISECAL LTD v. CONWELL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA841/2008

It was reasonable for the plaintiff to sue and maintain the action against both defendants; because the plaintiff's claims against Conwell and the alternative claim against Francis arose from the same complaint a Bullock approach to costs allocation was appropriate; Francis's application for contribution from Conwell failed because no contribution notice under Order 16 r.8 was served; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to award Conwell costs from the plaintiff and to order Francis to pay the plaintiff's costs (including costs relating to having two defendants and costs payable to Con…
12 Mar 2010

TANG HUNG ON v. CROWN RICH TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG HUNG ON v. CROWN RICH TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI304/2006

Because the 1st Defendant refused a sanctioned offer, engaged in obstructive and misleading conduct which impeded investigation and settlement, and failed to show special circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs and enhanced interest from the date the plaintiff's offer became unassailable, and to allow recovery of reasonable investigation and expert costs.
25 Jul 2007

MEHMOOD KHALID v. MILLION HARVEST WHARVES & LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MEHMOOD KHALID v. MILLION HARVEST WHARVES & LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI401/2006

Because the plaintiff properly joined alternative defendants, Millions Harvest's solicitors failed to respond to pre-writ inquiries and disclosure showed Millions Harvest Assets was not liable, and Millions Harvest chose to run the matter to trial and assert contributory negligence against Mr Yeung, the court made a Sanderson order requiring Millions Harvest to pay Mr Yeung's costs and Millions Harvest Assets' costs up to discontinuance.
12 Oct 2006

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v. CHINA FAITH LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v. CHINA FAITH LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2767/2001

The Letter of 11 October 2000, properly construed in context, could constitute an agreement to pay the agency fee, but the Plaintiff failed to prove that the 3rd Defendant had authority (actual, implied or ostensible) to bind the 1st Defendant; the Tripartite Agreement was not established; consequently the Plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the 1st Defendant's contribution claim against the 2nd Defendant were dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN KON FUNG v. GALLOP PIONEER LTD AND OTHERS

YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

HUA TYAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

WISECAL LTD v. CONWELL INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

TANG HUNG ON v. CROWN RICH TRANSPORTATION LTD AND OTHERS

MEHMOOD KHALID v. MILLION HARVEST WHARVES & LOGISTICS LTD AND OTHERS

JONES LANG LASALLE LTD v. CHINA FAITH LTD AND OTHERS