FUBON BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. FIRST PRIME GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 223/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 223 OF 2009

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------  

(Heard together)

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Introduction

1.  HCMP 223/2009 is an interpleader proceeding which relates to the sum of US$523,751.75 standing to the credit of First Prime Group Ltd, (First Prime), at Fubon Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd, (Fubon Bank), as at 9 February 2009.

2.  HCA 9/2009 is an action brought by six persons collectively, also the 3^rd to 8^th defendants in the interpleader proceedings, and who may collectively be referred to as the Croatian defendants.

3.  The applications which resulted in the orders now under appeal were made were in both HCMP 223/2009 and HCA 9/2009.  The applications, for disposal of the interpleader summons in HCMP 223/2009, and for garnishee orders absolute in HCA 9/2009, were heard together by the Registrar on 13 March 2009.

Background

4.  The 2^nd to 9^th defendants in the interpleader proceedings are the victims of a fraudulent “cold calling” scheme perpetrated by a Mr Yeo Teng Hwee, also known as Yeo Teng Hwee, Christopher, through two companies, First Prime and Pacific Wealth Global Ltd, (Pacific Wealth), both of which are British Virgin Islands companies.

5.  The modus operandi of Mr Yeo was to have associates telephone people, unknown to either Mr Yeo or his associates, (this is known as “cold calling”), and persuade those persons to deposit money in bank accounts operated by Mr Yeo, in the names of First Prime, and Pacific Wealth, for the purpose of purchasing shares on the United States stock market.  In fact, no share purchases were made at all.  In January 2009, Mr Yeo faced criminal charges in Hong Kong in relation to the funds paid to the company bank accounts by various people, including the defendants in these interpleader proceedings.  He pleaded guilty to those charges, and has subsequently been imprisoned.

6.  As a result of the telephone calls that were made US$523,751.75 is held by Fubon Bank in an account for First Prime.  Competing claims are made against the fund now in that account, and consequently Fubon Bank has commenced these interpleader proceedings.

The interpleader proceedings

7.  The Fubon Bank has standing to the credit of First Prime Group Ltd, as at 9 February 2009, US$523,751.75.  On that day, by solicitors, Fubon Bank commenced these interpleader proceedings pursuant to O 17 RHC.  Named as the defendants in the interpleader proceedings the nine defendants whose names are set out in the title above.

8.  The affidavit in support of the interpleader proceedings by the Legal Counsel to Fubon Bank sets out that four claims have been made to the fund held by Fubon Bank.  They were first, a Restraint Order obtained by the Secretary for Justice, second, HCA 9/2009, a writ issued by the Croatian defendants, third, HCA 124/2009, the writ issued by the 2^nd defendant, Mr Al Husseini, and forth, an intended action notified to Fubon Bank by the solicitors for the 9^th defendant, Mr Thakur.  The Secretary for Justice has subsequently withdrawn the Restraint Order and is no longer involved in the proceedings.

9.  There is not the slightest doubt that the bank has acted entirely properly in commencing the interpleader proceedings.  At the hearing of the appeal I fixed the costs payable to Fubon Bank in a gross sum of $50,000, ordered that that sum be deducted from the fund held by Fubon Bank, and released Mr Maurellet and his solicitors from further attendance.

10.  In the interpleader proceedings a Notice to Act was duly filed, on 24 February 2009, separately, by the solicitors for Mr Al Husseini, and the solicitors for Mr Thakur, and on 25 February 2009, by the solicitors for the Croatian defendants.

11.  Mr Thakur, who brings the present appeal, has no complaint about Mr Al Husseini being paid the amount claimed by him, US$139,400, from the fund.  Consequently, Mr Al Husseini has taken no part in the proceedings before me.

12.  It is necessary to set out the circumstances and the state of each of the claims.

The Croatian defendants’ action:

13.  Three of the Croatian defendants, the 3^rd, 7^th, and the 8^th defendants, deposited a total sum of US$249,370.18 in Fubon Bank between 28 November 2007 and 18 April 2008.

14.  In addition to those deposits, the 3^rd, 7^th and 8^th defendants deposited US$93,690.15 in a Hong Kong bank known as the Cathay Bank.  Deposits were also made by the Croatian defendants in various overseas bank accounts.  The 3^rd, 7^th and 8^th defendants also deposited US$48,394.50 in Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, UK.  The 8^th defendant deposited €15,000 in Lloyds TSB Bank International, and US$26,945 50 in the Hellenic Bank Public Company Ltd, Cyprus.  The 4^th and 6^th defendants deposited US$86,291.63 in the Societe Generale Cyprus Ltd bank in Cyprus.  The 6^th defendant deposited US$58,041.28 in an account in Maybank International Ltd, Malaysia, and a further US$24,592.49 in another account at Maybank.

15.  In all the 3^rd to 8^th defendants, collectively, deposited a total sum of US$597,325.73, and €15,000, to the credit of the various bank accounts held by First Prime, and Pacific Wealth.

16.  On about 31 December 2008, the Croatian defendants obtained a Mareva order against Mr Yeo, First Prime and Pacific Wealth, and an order permitting them to inspect the bankers records at Fubon Bank and Cathay Bank.  Leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was obtained.

17.  Then, on 2 January 2009, the Croatian defendants issued a writ, HCA 9/2009, against Mr Yeo and the two companies.  That writ was indorsed with a claim seeking declarations, first that a total sum of US$475,435.73 transferred to various banks worldwide in the name of the Croatian defendants was held on a constructive trust for them.  The indorsement further claimed that the sum of US$249,370.18, standing to the credit of three of the Croatian defendants in Fubon Bank was a sum to which those three defendants had beneficial ownership and/or proprietary rights.  Unspecified damages for breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud the various plaintiffs were also included in the claim.

18.  On 14 January 2009, a comprehensive statement of claim was filed, in which the amounts deposited by the various Croatian defendants were set out, as I have set them out in paragraphs 13-15 above.  The causes of action pleaded were breach of contract, breach of agents duties, conspiracy to defraud and/or injure, breach of trust and or fiduciary duty, and money had and received.

19.  Mr Yeo was served with the writ, in his personal capacity, and for First Prime and Pacific Wealth, and instructed solicitors.  On 14 January 2009, he made an affirmation in which he said he had no assets, whether real or personal or capital, except two bail receipts for two sums of HK$200,000 and HK$10,000 which he said were moneys borrowed by his wife from various friends.  In that affidavit he set out the outstanding credit held by the two companies at Fubon Bank, US$523,751.75, First Commercial Bank, (only US$500), and Cathay Bank, US$146,871.75.

20.  On 22 January 2009, consequent upon a joint application by the solicitors for the Croatian defendants, and the solicitors for Mr Yeo and the two companies, judgment was entered against First Prime in the sum of US$587,325.73 and €15,000 or its Hong Kong dollar equivalent, plus interest agreed in the total sum of US$33,000 to 22 January 2009.  Costs were agreed at US$10,000.  The judgment is a global judgement for those sums, and does not specify whether any particular sum deposited by any particular defendant was a sum held by First Prime under a constructive trust in favour of that defendant, or that any particular defendant had a proprietary interest in any particular sum in any particular bank.

21.  The judgment provided that notwithstanding the Mareva order, and subject to a Restraint Order obtained by the Secretary for Justice being discharged, First Prime had leave to pay out of the Fubon Bank account US$513,519.13 to the Croatian defendants in partial settlement of the judgment.

22.  On 5 February 2009, the Croatian defendants obtained a garnishee order nisi against Fubon Bank in respect of the sums for which judgment had been obtained.  The return date to make the order absolute was Friday 13 March 2009.

Mr Al Husseini’s action

23.  Mr Al Husseini, the 2^nd defendant in the interpleader proceedings, was also a victim of the scheme.  During the relevant period, Mr Al Husseini had deposited US$139,400 in to the Fubon Bank account.  On 9 January 2009, solicitors for Mr Al Husseini had notified Fubon Bank that Mr Al Husseini asserted a proprietary interest in the sum of US$139,400 in the Fubon Bank account, which they said was held by Mr Yeo and First Prime on a constructive trust for Mr Al Husseini.

24.  A writ, HCA124/2009, was issued by Mr Al Husseini, and on 16 January 2009, First Prime consented to judgment in favour of Mr Al Husseini in the sum of US$139,400.  Again, the consent judgment does not specify whether Mr Al Husseini was entitled to the sum for which judgment was entered by virtue of a constructive trust or that he had a proprietary interest in the sum.

25.  On 23 January 2009, Mr Al Husseini obtained a garnishee order nisi against Fubon Bank in respect of the sums for which judgment had been entered.  The return date to make the order absolute was Wednesday 18 February 2009.

26.  On 12 February 2009, the solicitors for the Croatian defendants wrote to the solicitors for Mr Al Husseini explaining why they did not consider that Mr Al Husseini had any priority on his claim over the Croatian defendants.

Mr Thakur’s steps

27.  Mr Thakur, the 9^th defendant in the interpleader proceedings, whom I understand to be a Taiwanese resident, was also a victim of the same scheme.  Between 14 December 2007 and 16 March 2008, by three deposits, Mr Thakur deposited US$92,894.85 to the account of First Prime at Fubon Bank in Hong Kong.

28.  On 4 February 2009, the solicitors for Mr Thakur wrote to Fubon Bank giving notice that they had instructions to take civil proceedings against First Prime and Pacific Wealth.  The letter made it clear the solicitors were aware of the Mareva injunction obtained by the Croatian defendants, and that by that injunction Fubon Bank were required to hold the fund at that time.  But it appears that they did not issue proceedings against Mr Yeo, or First Prime, or Pacific Wealth immediately.  Consequently, until now, Mr Thakur has not secured a judgment against First Prime, and has not been able to commence garnishee proceedings.

29.  Mr Thakur has now filed an affidavit in which he exhibits a statement of claim in respect of an intended action against First Prime.  I am told from the bar that this action is in the course of being filed in court and served.  A less comprehensive statement of claim had been put before the Registrar during the proceedings from which this appeal arises.  The statement of claim, in so far as it asserts a constructive trust and a proprietary interest in the funds deposited, is in virtually identical terms to the statement of claim filed by the Croatian defendants.  I am told from the bar that the solicitors for Mr Thakur have been in discussion with Mr Yeo and that a consent judgment against First Prime is expected to be entered within the next few days.

Important factors

30.  First, it is important to note that the deposits in the Fubon Bank account over which the interpleader proceedings arise have been made by only three of the Croatian defendants, the 3^rd, 7^th and 8^th defendants, and by Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur.  The total sum deposited in Fubon Bank by those five individuals is US$481,665.03, a sum that is less than the total fund held by Fubon Bank.

31.  Second, it is important too to note that the deposits made Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur were made within the same time span as the deposits made by the three Croatian defendants, and that subsequent to the first deposit being made by any of those parties, no funds have been withdrawn from the account.

32.  Third, it is important to note that the judgment sealed by the Croatian defendants against First Prime is a global sum, apparently attributable to all of the Croatian defendants, collectively, and is not a judgment that confirms that any of the Croatian defendants are entitled to any particular funds, either by way of a constructive trust, or a proprietary claim.  As already indicated, Mr Al Husseini’s the judgment is silent as to whether he is entitled to a proprietary interest in the fund.

33.  That said, the three Croatian defendants, Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur, all of whom deposited funds into the Fubon Bank account, which funds still appear to be in that account, arguably have a strong claim to the funds they deposited, either by a constructive trust or a proprietary claim.

34.  Any concern as to mixing of funds, raised by Mr Hui, for the Croatian defendants, in opposition to Mr Thakur sharing in the Fubon Bank funds, and based upon the decision in Foskett v McKeown [2001] AC 102, applies equally to each of the three groups of persons who deposited funds in the Fubon Bank account.  But the reality of the situation here is that there is no concern arising on the issue of mixing of funds.  The three Croatian defendants, Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur, all deposited funds in the Fubon Bank account over the same period.  I am informed that no funds have been withdrawn from that account, since the deposits were made.  In those circumstances the funds deposited are identifiable as part of the sums standing to the credit in the account.  A concern would arise only if funds been with drawn during the relevant period and further funds from a different source then deposited.

35.  The claims by three of the Croatian defendants, the 3^rd, 7^th and 8^th defendants, Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur, based upon a constructive trust or proprietary interest, are identical in all respects.  It is right that the three Croatian defendants and Mr Al Husseini have entered judgment and obtained a garnishee orders nisi, but that goes nowhere to any distinction between the quality of the three claims to the funds in the Fubon bank account.

36.  The balance of the sum claimed generally against First Prime by the three Croatian defendants who deposited funds in the Fubon Bank, and the remaining Croatian defendants, for which judgment has been entered, relates to deposits paid into other banks, not the Fubon Bank.  While the Croatian defendants may have a right to take steps in execution in reliance upon the judgment they have obtained, their claim for any other funds or balance due to them by First Prime, by way of general damages, apart from a proprietary claim, to funds in the Fubon Bank account, must logically follow in priority to any claimant who has a right to a proprietary interest in funds in the account.

The garnishee orders are made absolute

37.  On 13 March 2009, in the face of opposition from Mr Thakur’s counsel, the Registrar, in the course of dealing with both the interpleader proceedings, and the applications to make the garnishee orders absolute, made the following orders:

1.  Mr Al Husseini’s garnishee order to show cause in HCA 124/2009, was made absolute;

2.  the Croatian defendants’ garnishee order to show cause in HCA 9/2009 was made absolute;

3.  Mr Al Husseini’s costs in HCA 124/2009 in the sum of HK$10,000, were to be paid, as to HK$4,000 from the Fubon Bank account, and as to HK$6,000 by Mr Thakur;

4. the Croatian defendants costs in HCA 9/2009 in the sum of HK$10,000, were to be paid, as to HK$4,000 from the Fubon Bank account, and as to HK$6,000 by Mr Thakur;

5.  the Fubon Bank’s costs were to be paid by Mr Thakur, assessed on a gross sum of HK$60,000, payable forthwith;

6.  the Croatian defendants costs in the interpleader proceedings were to be paid by Mr Thakur, assessed at a gross sum of HK$20,000, payable forthwith.

38.  It is not clear to me how the Registrar considered of that those orders could have dealt with the interpleader summons.  The issue still remained that the Croatian defendants sought more under their judgment than was held in the bank account, and is apparently no resolution of any issue of priority between the Croatian defendants and Mr Al Husseini.

The appeals by Mr Thakur

39.  On 19 March 2009, by his solicitors, Mr Thakur appealed the decisions made by the Registrar both as to the making of the garnishee orders absolute, and the costs orders.

40.  Subsequently, the solicitors for the Croatian defendants filed a summons requiring Mr Thakur to give security both for costs in the appeal, and for the costs ordered.  The Registrar, having heard the solicitors for the Croatian defendants, and counsel for Mr Thakur, ordered that security be given in the sum of HK$80,000, that sum to be paid into the court by 2 April 2009, failing which the appeal was to be dismissed.  Costs on the application for security for costs were assessed at a gross sum of HK$34,000 to be paid by Mr Thakur to Fubon Bank, forthwith.

41.  The Registrar refused to stay any of the orders, notwithstanding that the refusal to stay would have meant that Fubon Bank could have paid out the funds it held to the Croatian defendants and Mr Al Husseini, and that there was a strong argument that the appeal would thereby be rendered nugatory.

42.  Next, Mr Thakur, unrepresented, went before Chu J on 3 April 2009, and sought a stay of proceedings, pending appeal, in respect of all the orders made.  Chu J made an order staying the order for security for costs, pending the appeal, but refused a stay in relation to the orders making the garnishee orders absolute.  Chu J ordered that 50% of the Croatian defendants costs on the stay application must be paid by Mr Thakur, and that 50% of Mr Thakur’s costs on the stay application would be costs in the pending appeal.

43.  I have subsequently, on the application of Mr Thakur, (unrepresented), granted an interlocutory injunction restraining Fubon Bank from disposing of the funds held in the First Prime account, with the exception of the deduction of the costs awarded to them, until further order of the court.

The appeal against the order for security for costs

44.  Before me, Mr Hui, for the Croatian defendants accepted that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to order for security for costs in respect of the appeal, and in particular that the Registrar did not have power to order the dismissal of the appeal in the event that the security was not provided.

45.  In those circumstances Mr Thakur is entitled to judgment on his appeal against the order for security for costs.  The appeal is allowed, and the order of the Registrar requiring security for costs on the appeal is set aside, as is the order purporting to require that the appeal be dismissed if the security was not paid.  There will be an order nisi that the costs on that appeal, and before the Registrar, and on the application to stay before Chu J, be to Mr Thakur, to be paid by the Croatian defendants, on a party and party basis with a certificate for counsel on the appeal.

The appeal against the making absolute of the garnishee orders nisi

46.  The Registrar did not give written reasons for any of the decisions made.  I am told by counsel for the Croatian defendants that the basis of what constituted, effectively, a summary dismissal of Mr Thakur’s claim, was that the Registrar took the view that the draft statement of claim submitted by Mr Thakur’s solicitors fell short of substantiating the claim made by him.

47.  That there are no written reasons is of no moment, because it is clear that an appeal from the Master to a Judge in chambers is by way of an actual rehearing of the application, and in appropriate circumstances with further evidence.  As I have already indicated a statement of claim setting out the basis of Mr Thakur’s claim against First Prime was exhibited to an affidavit to be filed by Mr Thakur, handed in by counsel, during the hearing of the appeal.

Discussion

48.  The procedure for dealing with claims of third persons, other than the judgement creditor, when there is a garnishee order nisi, is dealt with by O 49 r 6.  By R 6(1) RHC, if in garnishee proceedings, it is brought to the notice of the Court that some other person than the judgment debtor claims to be entitled to the debt sought to be attached, or has or claims to have a charge or lien on that debt, the Court may order that person to attend before the court and state the nature of his claim with particulars.  By r 2, such a claim may be summarily determined and such order made as the Court thinks just.  That order may include an order that any question or issue necessary for determining the validity of the claim by such other person may be tried in the same manner as is set out in O 49 r 5, which makes provision for the circumstance when the garnishee disputes liability.

49.  In the present case, the Registrar was apparently not satisfied that Mr Thakur had a sufficient claim.  That was plainly not the case.  The evidence before the Registrar demonstrated that Mr Thakur had made deposits to the Fubon Bank account in the same way as the Croatian defendants, and during the same period of time.  It may well have been that the Registrar doubted the formulation of the claim in the statement of claim was put before her, but the fact of the deposits was clear, as was the clear inference arising that Mr Thakur would have a proprietary claim to the fund in those circumstances.  If that were not clear to the Registrar, it is now plain from the statement of claim put to me by Mr Thakur’s counsel.

50.  The argument made by Mr Hui that a claimant for a constructive trust must be able to trace the money, and show that was not mixed with money belonging to others, or not dissipated, applies equally to the three Croatian defendants who paid funds into the Fubon Bank account.  Clearly, for the Croatian defendants who did not pay funds directly into the Fubon Bank account there can be no claim for a constructive trust or proprietary interest, in the Fubon Bank funds.  It was plainly wrong to make the garnishee orders absolute, when the effect would be to give priority to those defendants, over Mr Thakur, who arguably has a proprietary claim over those funds.

51.  I simply cannot see that merely because they have a judgment, for a non-specific global sum, from which they have obtained a garnishee order nisi, the Croatian defendants are entitled to any priority over Mr Thakur in relation to his claim for a proprietary interest in the funds held by Fubon Bank.  Mr Hui did not cite any authority for that proposition.  At the very least there was plainly triable issue in relation to Mr Thakur’s claim that he had a proprietary interest in the funds which gave him priority over the Croatian defendants who had not deposited funds to the Fubon Bank account.

52.  The proper course to follow appears from the authorities.  Where there is a clear conflict of evidence constituting a triable issue, that issue should be properly investigated before an order absolute is made: Go Fun Properties & Investment Ltd v So Bik Har Winfield Constructors Corp & Anor [1980] HKC 66 CA.  That is also the position in England: George Lee & Sons (Builders) Ltd v Olink & Anor [1972] 1 WLR 214.

53.  The argument that a proprietary claim will have priority over other claims is consistent with the statement contained in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2009, as may be seen from paragraph 49/3/9, where it is said that until a judgment creditor obtains actual payment, a receiver for debenture holders, even though appointed subsequently to a garnishee order absolute, will obtain priority over the judgment creditor.  The conclusion I draw from that reference is that where a judgment creditor has not obtained actual payment of a debt by way of a garnishee order, the fact that he has a garnishee order nisi gives him no priority over other creditors.

54.  It being plainly established now that Mr Thakur is in precisely the same position as the three Croatian defendants who deposited money in the Fubon Bank, the proper course is to make an order to enable the question as to whether or not persons who claim a constructive trust, or a proprietary interest in funds in the Fubon Bank should be entitled to those funds ahead of the general creditors of First Prime.

55.  Mr Hui said that Mr Thakur’s position in relation to Mr Al Husseini was inconsistent, in that he was content for Mr Al Husseini to draw from the fund.  But it is not inconsistent at all.  If there is any inconsistency at all, it is in the position of the Croatian defendants who have not deposited funds to the Fubon Bank account, in asserting that they should have the monies ahead of Mr Al Husseini or Mr Thakur.

56.  As I understand Mr Thakur’s position, he is perfectly content for each of the five claimants, the 3^rd, 7^th and 8^th defendants, Mr Al Husseini and himself, all of whom deposited arguably traceable funds into the Fubon Bank during the relevant period, to have those funds returned to them.  That is entirely logical, for although the funds have become mixed within the account, I am told that no funds have been withdrawn from the account, and that consequently the deposits made can be traced directly to the accumulated balance.

57.  In those circumstances it seems sensible at each of those three groups of claimants, the three Croatian defendants, Mr Al Husseini and Mr Thakur, should be entitled to trace their funds, retrieve them, and any balance in the account at Fubon Bank, (after the Bank’s costs), be available to any other general creditors.

Which proceedings?

58.  Mr Hui, in his skeleton, but without any oral argument, contended that there were procedural defects in Mr Thakur’s appeals.  First, he said that the garnishee orders absolute, and the costs orders, were made by the Registrar in HCA 9/2009, the writ issued by the Croatian defendants, and that consequently the appeal made by Mr Thakur, in the proceedings under HCMP 223/2009, was not based on any order in these proceedings.

59.  The same argument was mounted in relation to the appeal against the order for security for costs.  Mr Hui said that order too, was made in the proceedings under HCA 9/2009.  The appeal, Mr Hui said, purported to be made in the proceedings under HCMP 223/2009.  Thus he said both appeals should be dismissed.

60.  Both of these arguments are entirely unmeritorious technical arguments.  I have regard to the fact that Mr Thakur was unrepresented at the time the appeals were filed.  In any event, it is plain from the order sealed by Fubon Bank in these proceedings, that the orders making the garnishee orders absolute, and now challenged, were made by the Registrar in the course of hearing both sets of proceedings, including the interpleader proceedings, in which Mr Thakur was a party.  Although he has made a claim in respect of the funds over which the Croatian defendants held a garnishee order nisi, and may properly be described as a claimant to those funds, Mr Thakur has never been a party to HCA 9/2009.  If it were necessary, I would make any appropriate order rectifying the technical position in which Mr Thakur finds himself to enable the appeals to be heard.

Conclusion

61.  For the foregoing reasons the appeal against the orders of the Registrar making the garnishee orders absolute, and the consequent costs orders, must be allowed.  The garnishee orders absolute are set aside, and the garnishee orders nisi restored.  All orders for costs made by the Registrar below are set aside.  The interim injunction made by me restraining Fubon Bank from disposing of the funds until the interpleader and garnishee proceedings have been disposed of will continue until further order of the court.

62.  No submissions were made to me in respect of the appropriate course to be adopted should it be necessary to determine the competing claims between the claimants.  The solicitors for the Croatian defendants, and for Mr Thakur should be able to agree on an appropriate procedure. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply should they not be able to agree upon an appropriate order.  I note however that already boasts of these parties have expended far too much in the way of legal costs in these proceedings.  The sensible and just way of resolving the matter appears to me to lie in paragraph 57 of this judgment.

Costs

63.  Mr Thakur has succeeded in all respects in respect of both appeals.  He is entitled a costs order nisi, here and below, with a certificate for counsel where necessary, to be taxed on a party and party basis, against the Croatian defendants.