TAN MAN KOU AND ANOTHER v. CHIME CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 4146/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4146 OF 2001

____________

____________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1. I have two applications to vary an order nisi as to costs in respect of three summonses in a decision that I handed down on 6 May 2003. One application is made by Chime Corporation Limited ("Chime"), the 1st respondent herein, the other application is by Mrs Nina Wang, the 2nd respondent.

2. The variation sought in both instances is that I should grant a certificate for two counsel in respect of these respondents. I would deal with the application of Chime first.

3. I have considered the submissions made to me by Mr Ng. I am not persuaded that in any of the three summonses, it was necessary and proper to engage two counsel. The petition of course involves a large amount of money, but it is essential to have regard to the nature of the particular application before the court. The summonses were all concerned with procedural matters. It does not appear to me that in the abuse summons and the strike out summons, any difficult or complex point of law was involved. Besides, the arguments advanced by Chime in support of the strike out application were basically the same arguments made by its leading counsel in the earlier hearing before Deputy Judge Gill in December 2001. As for the amendment summons, Chime made submissions on two matters only, i.e. the improper participation of the company in the petition and the repayment of dividends. No point was taken on the most difficult aspect which related to the loans to Chinachem Agencies Limited. I do not propose to vary the order nisi as far as Chime is concerned.

4. As for Mrs Wang's application, she seeks a variation to include a certificate for two counsel both for the hearing before Yuen JA and the adjourned hearing before me on 7 January 2003. Mrs Wang had only participated in the amendment summons. In the hearing before Yuen JA, Mrs Wang's leading counsel, Mr Whitehead SC, appeared without a junior, so no question of granting a certificate for two counsel would arise for that hearing. As for the hearing before me, Mrs Wang's counsel, Mr Denis Chang SC, appeared with a junior. Mr Chang had made new points in his written and oral submissions not made in Mr Whitehead's written submission.

5. Having re-considered the matter, I am persuaded that there was an important and difficult point of law involved in the amendment summons would justify the participation of junior counsel. Further, the amendments relating to the loans to Chinachem Agencies Limited would affect the position of Mrs Wang in a significant way.

6. I propose to vary the order nisi to include a certificate for two counsel on this occasion as far as Mrs Wang is concerned.

7. Paragraph 3(b)(2) of the order dated 6 May 2003 is altered as follows: the costs in respect of the hearing on 7 January 2003 shall be costs in the cause of the petition with a certificate for two counsel for the 2nd respondent.

8. As for the costs of today, in respect of the application taken out by Chime, I order that Chime should pay the costs of the joint administrators in this application in any event. On the application taken out by Mrs Wang, I order that the joint administrators should pay the costs of Mrs Wang in this application in any event.

9. In both applications, I order that the joint administrators' own costs are to be paid out of the estate of Wang Teh Huei and be taxed on a trustee basis.