8 Dec 2023
The Court held that O 11 r 1(2) applied to the SFC's claims so leave under O 11 r 1(1)(f) was irrelevant, dismissed the appeal, and exercised its discretion to order that costs follow the event: the appellants must pay the SFC's costs including those of the leave application and costs submissions.
4 Sept 2017
The court found the 2nd plaintiff failed to satisfy Order 11 r 1(1)(f) because it did not establish damage sustained in Hong Kong; Hong Kong was not the natural and appropriate forum because the PRC had the clearest connection and PRC law and witnesses were likely engaged; accordingly the leave to serve the writ out of jurisdiction was discharged, service set aside and the proceedings were stayed, with costs ordered against the 2nd plaintiff.
29 Dec 2016
Appeal allowed in part: the judge's costs order awarding the plaintiff 60% of the costs of the setting aside application was set aside and substituted so that the 2nd defendant pays the plaintiff 30% of those costs (reflecting a 40% reduction previously ordered plus a further 30% deduction for abandonment of the contract claim), the judge's 40% reduction for misrepresentation remains, the plaintiff must pay the costs of the appeal, and half of the costs of the leave applications (which were made costs in the cause) are awarded to the 2nd defendant.