|
HCA 1439/2012
[2023] HKCFI 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 1439 OF 2012
________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
CHUNG PUI TAK |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
FINE GROUP PAPER PRODUCT LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
TAM CHI LEUNG NOLAN |
1st Defendant |
| |
BEST TRI PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
| |
FINE GROUP TRADING LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
________________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge Leung in Chambers (Paper Disposal) |
| Plaintiffs’ written submissions: |
14 October 2022 |
| 1st Defendant’s written submissions: |
27 October 2022 |
| Date of Decision of Costs: |
2 February 2023 |
_____________________________
D E C I S I O N O N C O S T S
_____________________________
1. On 30 September 2022, this court handed down the decision (“the Decision”) in respect of the plaintiffs’ application for mareva injunction against the 1st defendant (“D1”). Pursuant to that, the parties have lodged their respective written submissions on costs.
2. The Decision refers, specifically §37 thereof whereby this court observed that the application could have been resolved by November 2021 without substantive argument. The parties are ad idem that the dividing line starts with the letter from D1 dated 7 October 2021 (“the Letter”).
3. The consideration of the submissions does not alter this court’s preliminary observation stated in §37 of the Decision.
4. In particular, D1’s offer in the Letter was put forward regardless of the merits of his resistance to the plaintiffs’ application. Argument would have been saved, if the application could be resolved on terms agreed between the parties.
5. After exchange between the parties since the Letter, D1 agreed by letter dated 15 October 2021 to provide the undertaking.
6. The argument in respect of the Disputed Term, as this court ruled in paragraphs 30-31 of the Decision, turned out to be against the plaintiffs.
7. The plaintiffs also lost in their attempt to invoke the Chabra jurisdiction of the court.
8. D1 did not change his position in respect of his undertaking at the hearing.
9. The complexity of the case lies with the dispute and terms of the judgment for adjudication, but not the plaintiffs’ application for mareva injunction with reference to such adjudication.
10. In the premises:
(1) Costs of the application by the plaintiff’s summons filed on 26 July 2021 up to 15 October 2021 be to the plaintiffs, and those after 15 October 2021, including the hearing on 2 November 2021 and these submissions, be to D1.
(2) Costs shall be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for one counsel.
| |
(Simon Leung)
Deputy High Court Judge
|
Written submissions by Mr Simon Chiu, instructed by Kam & Fan, for the plaintiffs
Written submissions by Ms Mandy Yau, instructed by Philip Tam & Co, for the 1st defendant
|