Borrelli -v- HSBC (CI) Ltd [2007] JRC 116 (15 June 2007)

Borrelli -v- HSBC (CI) Ltd [2007] JRC 116 (15 June 2007)

The Jersey Court's powers are wide enough to extend to costs incurred by the Respondent in relation to the section 221 summons in Hong Kong, and justice requires that such costs be paid by the Representor because the Respondent was given no notice of the direct order sought in Hong Kong, there was no requirement under Hong Kong law for such a summons, and the Respondent could not recover its costs in Hong Kong.

Citation
[2007] JRC 116
Parties
Applicant: Representor; Respondent: HSBC (CI) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Recognition of Foreign Liquidator and Information Order / Costs Determination Following Substantive Order
Outcome
Application for costs by Respondent granted.
Legal Topics
Recognition of Foreign Liquidators, Costs Orders, Jurisdiction Over Costs, Letters of Request, Section 221 Hong Kong Companies Ordinance
Insolvency Cross Border Insolvency Banking Law Recognition of Foreign Liquidators Costs Orders Jurisdiction Over Costs Letters of Request Section 221 Hong Kong Companies Ordinance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Representor

Applicant

HSBC (CI) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Recognition of Foreign Liquidator and Information Order / Costs Determination Following Substantive Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Jersey Court has jurisdiction to order payment of costs incurred by the Respondent in relation to Hong Kong proceedings, specifically costs relating to a section 221 summons and legal advice obtained in Hong Kong.
  2. 2 Whether such costs are incidental to the Jersey proceedings and should be paid by the Representor.

Ratio Decidendi

The Jersey Court's powers are wide enough to extend to costs incurred by the Respondent in relation to the section 221 summons in Hong Kong, and justice requires that such costs be paid by the Representor because the Respondent was given no notice of the direct order sought in Hong Kong, there was no requirement under Hong Kong law for such a summons, and the Respondent could not recover its costs in Hong Kong.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by Respondent granted.

Orders

  • The reasonable costs and expenses of the Respondent, including legal advice in Jersey and Hong Kong relating to the letter of request and section 221 summons, are to be paid by the Representor.
  • Payment of these costs is a condition of the orders made in favour of the Representor.