Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of petition

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2020

LAU WAI YIN AMY AND ANOTHER v. POON CHUNG KWONG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1040
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV453/2020

The judge erred in principle by adopting the withdrawing-party-pays starting point and failing to treat the petitioners as the successful parties who, having secured the repayment order based on the solicitor's undertaking, were entitled to costs; accordingly the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier costs order and ordered the 1st respondent to pay the petitioners' costs including those after 30 April 2019 up to the end of the proceedings.
15 Jun 2020

LAU WAI YIN AMY AND ANOTHER v. POON CHUNG KWONG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP152/2019

The Summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to show any reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the court's exercise of its discretion on costs was plainly wrong: the court had articulated reasons (including that the Petition was inappropriate once control of the company was regained and that withdrawal was the operative event), the Petitioners obtained no orders against the 1st Respondent, and new arguments raised only on appeal could not be relied on.
19 Mar 2020

LAU WAI YIN AMY AND ANOTHER v. POON CHUNG KWONG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP152/2019

Applying a fairness-based discretionary approach to costs, the court found no abuse of process, acknowledged that petitioners achieved their primary objective (return of HK$2.5 million), and split costs by reference to control of the company: respondents pay petitioners' costs up to and including 29 April 2019; petitioners pay respondents' costs from 30 April 2019 to the hearing on 24 December 2019; no order for costs relating to written submissions after 24 December 2019.
3 Aug 2018

LWS v. LAJ

Citation

[2018] HKFC 128
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10209/2017

The judge found that although the mother's delay in withdrawing the petition was unfortunate, her conduct did not amount to unreasonable litigation conduct sufficient to depart from the usual position in child-related matters; therefore no order as to costs was made in respect of the order dated 9 April 2018, with costs to be taxed party and party if not agreed and the mother's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
24 Jan 2013

RE CHEUNG SAU KING

Citation

RE CHEUNG SAU KING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2579/2012

Leave to withdraw the Amended Petition was granted because the debt underpinning the petition had been satisfied by sale proceeds; the debtor's allegations of unreasonable conduct did not affect the withdrawal application and any remedy for those allegations lies in separate proceedings or legal advice.
4 Dec 2012

TSANG KIN SHING (BULL) v. LI CHUN CHAU AND OTHERS

Citation

TSANG KIN SHING (BULL) v. LI CHUN CHAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2012

Leave to withdraw the election petition is granted; there was insufficient material to conclude the petition was an abuse of process or lacked bona fides from the outset, and accordingly costs are awarded to the respondents on a party-and-party basis to be taxed if not agreed rather than on an indemnity basis.
26 Oct 2012

SO CHUN MAN v. LEUNG YAU FONG

Citation

SO CHUN MAN v. LEUNG YAU FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL9/2012

Leave to withdraw the election petition was granted because the statutory requirements for withdrawal had been complied with, no person sought substitution as petitioner, and on consideration of the nature of the allegations the grant of leave was appropriate; costs of the proceedings were ordered to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.
1 Feb 2010

RE: CHOY BING WING

Citation

RE: CHOY BING WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB12343/2009

Leave to withdraw the bankruptcy petition was granted under s.5(2) because the petitioning debt had been paid and the Official Receiver raised no objection; the court exercised its discretion under BR r.79 to order the debtor to pay the Petitioner's costs, but refused to award indemnity costs because the debtor's conduct did not exhibit the special or unusual features required to justify indemnity and the costs claimed were excessive; the court fixed the Petitioner's costs at HK$70,000 plus HK$5,300 Official Receiver costs, total HK$75,300.
9 Nov 2007

TANG KUM SUI v. CHUNG KOON LUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG KUM SUI v. CHUNG KOON LUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL26/2007

Cap. 576 and its rules preserve the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; petitioner was prima facie liable for costs on withdrawal/dismissal under s.46(7); having regard to the nature of the petition, reliance on hearsay, conjecture and failure to investigate, the court exercised its discretion to order the petitioner to pay the respondents' costs and to have those costs taxed on an indemnity basis.
10 May 2006

KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN

Citation

KO SIN YUN v. CHAN CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4824/2005

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge was not satisfied on the materials before the court that there was a real possibility he had erred in the exercise of his discretion as to costs; the petition had been presented on the basis of a default judgment which, until set aside, was a regular judgment enforceable by petition, and Re Hon Sing Engineering was distinguishable as it concerned a disputed debt rather than a judgment debt.