HO CHOR MING AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG CHIU CHOW PO HING BUDDHISM ASSOCIATION LTD

HCMP 506/2013

[2018] HKCFI 2085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 506 OF 2013

____________________

____________________

____________________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

1.  I consider that leave should be given because the decision may have more general implications beyond this case in relation to the practice of assessment of the fees and disbursements of receivers. While the principles applied are not, in my view, novel and are, indeed, of some antiquity, as is accepted on behalf of the Association this is the first case in Hong Kong — at any rate the first case in which a reasoned judgment can be located — in which concluded assessments of a receiver’s and his solicitors’ bills have been reopened on the application of the entity that has emerged from receivership. It seems to me that, if I may say so, the subject would benefit from appellate consideration and determination.

2.  I am not particularly impressed by the proposed grounds of appeal or their prospects but I refrain from commenting on them except that I should say a word about the allegation of serious irregularity. While some of the authorities referred to in my judgment were not cited by counsel, many of them were used to counter the assertion made by counsel for the receiver that the fees and expenses of a receiver are strictly a matter between the court and its own officer — a proposition which I in any event considered to be contrary to natural justice and which Ms Lam, whilst not conceding it is wrong, has only faintly maintained on this application.  Some of the other authorities concern the issue of providing the receiver’s accounts to the parties to the proceedings under Order 30 r 5, but that is an alternative juridical route for the conclusion I reached on the second issue identified.  The decision that I reached was, I believe, the case advanced on behalf of the Association, namely, that as a matter of principle a company may be allowed to participate in the assessment of its receiver’s fees and expenses, that the court has power to reopen or set aside assessments made in this case in the absence of the Association, and that this discretionary power should be exercised by the court in the present case.

3.  Nevertheless, for the reasons I have already given, I think this is a case that is fit to go to the Court of Appeal.  The costs of this application shall be in the cause of the appeal, with a certificate for two counsel for the Association and the Receiver.