BILLION TOP GARMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. CHELTON FINANCE LTD

HCA742/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 742 OF 2006

___________________

___________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1. By an inter partes summons dated 15 June 2007 the plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction returnable before the summons judge on 22 June 2007.  The interlocutory injunction application was for an order that the defendant be restrained whether by itself, its directors, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from purporting to act as proxy or otherwise howsoever for or in the name of the 2^nd and 3^rd plaintiffs in particular from taking any action pursuant to a request dated 5 June 2007 contained in a letter issued by the defendant to the 1^st plaintiff requesting the calling of an EGM of the 1^st plaintiff until trial of the action or further order.

2. The parties entered into correspondence and by a consent order dated 22 June 2007 the defendant was restrained and the interlocutory injunction in the terms of the summons was granted by Deputy High Court Judge Longley.  The question of costs of the summons was reserved with liberty to restore the question of costs for argument.  That is the matter before me today. 

3. The parties have tried to resolve the question of costs in correspondence which I have been referred to. 

4. It is plain from the correspondence that the defendant has made an open offer to pay costs of the summons to the plaintiffs but the latest figure offered was the sum of $85,000.  Mr Wong, for the defendant, has before me this morning confirmed that the offer is still open.  However, he says that the amount that his client is prepared to pay is $85,000 as previously offered in open correspondence. 

5. It seems to me that the defendant accepts that it should pay costs to the plaintiffs for the interlocutory injunction.  However, it is only prepared to pay the sum of $85,000.  Mr Wong submitted that in the light of the background to the litigation the sum of $85,000 is a generous offer.  

6. It seems to me that this is a proper case where the court should make a gross sum assessment instead of a taxation of costs and the court in so doing would act on broad principles. 

7. Mr. Chain has referred me to the proposed statement of costs for a gross sum assessment which is in the bundle of exhibits.  Without going into the individual figures, it seems to me that on broad principles the proper figure on a gross sum assessment for the costs of the summons would be the sum of $116,500.  That is the figure I would award to the plaintiffs for the costs of the summons.  Such sum to be paid forthwith.  I will hear counsel on the question of costs for today’s hearing.