YAU WAH HING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN SO YING, the Executrix of the Estate of YUEN KAY MING, deceased

HCA 4252/2003

[2026] HKCFI 1410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 4252 OF 2003

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

A.  Introduction

1.  On 16 January 2026, this Court handed down a decision [2025] HKCFI 339 (“Decision”).[1] I shall not repeat what is set out in the Decision.  Suffice it for present purpose to recap as follows:

(1)  As held by the Court of Appeal, the proper remedy for the Plaintiffs was the taking of the partnership account upon the dissolution of the Partnership. However, the Judge made no finding on the date of the dissolution of the Partnership: CA Judgment §§61-62.

(2)  Subsequent to the CA Judgment, the parties reached agreement that the Partnership was dissolved on 24 February 2010 and that the Plaintiffs were entitled to 18.5% interest in the Partnership at the time of the dissolution.

(3)  For the purpose of taking the partnership account, it was agreed between the parties that the task of the Court was to assess the market value of the Licence (as of 24 February 2010)  so that its value could be distributed to the Plaintiffs. It was on such basis that the parties adduced expert evidence on valuation. In the Decision, I found that the market value of the Plaintiff’s interest in the Licence was of HK$4,185,264 (as of 24 February 2010).

2.  In the Decision, I further direct the parties to agree on the terms of the Order and the question of costs.  As the parties failed to reach agreement on terms of the Order and the costs, this hearing was fixed for the parties to make submission.

3.  At this hearing, Ms Wong appears for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant (acting in person)  is absent.

4.  On the terms of the Order, the Plaintiffs ask for payment of the value of their interest with simple interest at 1% above the prevailing HSBC prime lending rate from 24 February 2010 up to the date of judgment; and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.  The Plaintiffs also seek against the Defendant costs of the action (including any costs reserved), together with certificate for two counsel.

B.  Discussion

B1.   Interest

5.  On interest, Ms Wong submitted that pre-judgment interest should run from the date of the dissolution, i.e. 24 February 2010, subject only to the question as to whether any interest should be disallowed because of delay.  I have some difficulties with this submission:-

(1)  Ms Wong accepts that the remedy that the Plaintiffs seek is one for the taking of partnership account upon the dissolution of the partnership.

(2)  On this basis, I draw her attention to Lindley and Banks on Partnership (21^st ed), at §§20-03; 20-47 to 20-51; 20-60 and 20-61, in which it is stated that the general position is that interest is not payable in the case of dissolution and the taking of accounts, save in the case of loans and advances made by the partner. Those principles are also reflected in section 24 of the Partnership Act 1890, viz., the English counterpart of section 44 of the Partnership Ordinance (Cap 6).

6.  Having considered those passages from Lindley and Banks (above), Ms Wong confirms that the Plaintiffs would no longer claim for pre-judgment interest. In the premises, it is not necessary for me to address the question as to whether there was any delay on the part of the Plaintiffs in prosecuting the action; and whether any interest should be disallowed because of any such delay.

7.  The Plaintiffs only seek post-judgment interest at the judgment date from the date of the judgment.  This is not controversial and I so order.

B2.   Costs

8.  On the question of costs, Ms Wong asks for costs of the action, including all the costs reserved together with the costs of today, to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs.  I see no reason why costs should not follow the event.  Given that there are some complexities in the handling of the expert evidence, I am prepared to grant in favour of the Plaintiff a certificate for two counsel.

C.  Disposition

9.  In conclusion, it is ordered that:-

(1)  Judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for HK$4,185,264 to be paid forthwith, together with interest thereon at the judgment rate from the date of judgment until payment; and

(2)  Costs of the action, including all the costs reserved and the costs of today, be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs with a certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed, on party and party basis.