Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Official receiver liability

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2001

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LTD. v. LEE HOI KWONG

Citation

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LTD. v. LEE HOI KWONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV407/2000

The Official Receiver, being the only person legally able to consent to withdrawal, unreasonably refused to sign the consent summons and thereby caused an unnecessary hearing; signing such a consent would not have exposed him personally to liability for costs, so his refusal makes him personally liable for the plaintiff's costs of the hearing.
5 Nov 1996

THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9302/1993

The Official Receiver was ordered to bear the costs because the vesting application had no proper legal basis, the Official Receiver failed to justify the proceedings and procedural steps were misconceived; accordingly the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard and of the present hearing must be paid by the Official Receiver on a common fund basis.
5 Nov 1996

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW342/1996

The Official Receiver was held liable for the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard and for the costs of the hearing, but the appropriate scale of costs is a common fund basis rather than indemnity because the applications were misconceived and subsequently abandoned and did not amount to conduct warranting indemnity costs; the application to vest the lodged money lacked legal basis under s.198 and was doomed to fail.
5 Nov 1996

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW342/1993

The Official Receiver must bear the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard because the application to vest monies lacked a legal basis under s.198 of the Companies Ordinance, was procedurally misconceived and abandoned; the appropriate scale is common fund costs rather than indemnity, and those costs are payable to the 1st Defendant.
5 Nov 1996

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6861/1993

The court found the Official Receiver's application to vest the money had no sustainable legal basis under s.198 of the Companies Ordinance, the procedural steps were misconceived, and therefore the Official Receiver is liable for the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard; the appropriate scale is common fund basis rather than indemnity, and the costs of the three sets of proceedings reserved and of the hearing were ordered to be borne by the Official Receiver and paid to the 1st Defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI LTD. v. LEE HOI KWONG

THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS