|
HCA 309/2022
[2024] HKCFI 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 309 OF 2022
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
DINGWAY INVESTMENT LIMITED
(Provisional Liquidators Appointed) |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION &
DEVELOPMENT CO., (HONG KONG) LIMITED
(中國城市建設開發 (香港) 有限公司) |
1st Defendant |
| |
ZENG YUQI (曾玉琪) |
2nd Defendant |
| |
SZE WAI SUEN (施慰萱) |
3rd Defendant |
| |
REGA CENTER LLC |
4th Defendant |
| |
REGA CENTER MIAMI HOLDINGS LLC
(formerly known as CCCC INTERNATIONAL USA LLC) |
5th Defendant |
| |
GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED
(金門國際投資有限公司) |
6th Defendant |
| |
REGA HOLDINGS LIMITED |
7th Defendant |
| |
CCCC MIAMI BEACH LLC |
8th Defendant |
| |
MEI LI (also known as LI MEI) |
9th Defendant |
________________________
HCCW 30/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO 30 OF 2022
________________________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Dingway Investment Limited |
| |
And |
| |
IN THE MATTER OF the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32) |
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LIMITED
(IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) |
Petitioner |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
1st Respondent |
| |
DINGWAY INVESTMENT LIMITED |
2nd Respondent |
____________________
(Heard Together)
| Before: |
Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
11 January 2024 |
| Date of Decision: |
11 January 2024 |
_________________
DECISION
_________________
1. I was surprised to learn about this application by Dingway and CCCI seeking an order for summary assessment of the costs ordered by this Court pursuant to its Decision dated 29 July 2022 ([2022] HKCFI 2314)[1]. I am unable to agree with this application.
2. First, as per §165 of the Decision, all costs orders were made on nisi basis. No application was made within 14 days to vary the orders pursuant to O 42, r 5B to allow for summary assessment. I therefore agree with Mr Fan, who appears for CCCDHK and Sze, that this Court is now functus and the costs orders are to be taxed in accordance with normal practice.
3. Second, I also agree with Mr Fan that the complexity of the costs orders militates against summary assessment. There were multiple applications before the Court and the costs of which had to be apportioned to reflect the results. It is undisputed that the costs incurred had overlapped between applications. A summary assessment, whilst efficient, may not do justice to the case.
4. I therefore dismiss this application, and I shall hear the parties on costs.
|
( Anthony Chan ) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Mr CY Au of Tanner De Witt, for the Plaintiff in HCA 309/2022 and Petitioner in HCCW 30/2022
Mr Alex Fan, instructed by Jun He Law Offices, for the 1st and 3rd Defendants in HCA 309/2022 and for China City Construction & Development Co., (Hong Kong) Limited and Sze Wai Suen in HCCW 30/2022
Au-Yeung, Chan & Ho for the 2nd Defendant in HCA 309/2022 and Zeng Yuqi in HCCW 30/2022, absent
Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam for the 6th Defendant in HCA 309/2022, absent
Adrian Yeung & Cheng for the 7th and 9th Defendants in HCA 309/2022, absent
[1] The nomenclature used in the Decision is adopted herein.
|