SUPER SPEED LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA

HCCW 273/2012

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO. 273 OF 2012

___________________

__________________

HCCW 274/2012

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO. 274 OF 2012

___________________

__________________

__________________

[Consolidated by order of the Honourable Mr Justice Anthony Chan dated

the 9^th day of June 2015]

________________

D E C I S I O N
________________

1.  This is the Bank’s (the nomenclature employed in the decision herein dated 11 November 2015 (“Decision”) is adopted) application to vary part of the costs order nisi made in the Decision to the effect that the costs payable to the JSL by the Bank arising from its failed costs application be paid by GT, ie, the alternative Bullock order sought under para 1(b) of the Bank’s Summons dated 25 November 2015.

2.  I am not satisfied that the costs order in question should be varied, and my reasons are, briefly, as follows.  Firstly, The Bank took upon a difficulty application in trying to get its costs of the Summonses from the JSL (jointly and severally with GT) and lost.  Costs normally follow the event, and I am not convinced that there is good reason to add to the burden of GT with this additional costs.

3.  Secondly, I agree with Mr Fong, appearing for GT, that it would have been unnecessary for the Bank to make the costs application against the JSL (“Application”) had it protected itself with an application for security for costs (see the Decision, §68).

4.  Thirdly, I believe that the Application was partly motivated by vindictiveness on the part of the Bank (see the Decision, §§58 to 59).  I should add that it was alleged in a letter from the Bank’s solicitors dated 10 September 2015 that the JSL was “financially driven” in purusing the Summonses.

5.  Fourthly, the Bank had rejected the JSL’s offer to dispose of the Application on a drop hands basis.

6.  In the premises, the Bank’s Summons is dismissed.

[Submissions on costs of the application]

7.  There is no issue that the Bank should bear the costs of GT in this application and I so order.  As regards the costs of the JSL incurred today, it is regrettable that the ambiguity in the Bullock order sought by the Bank has not been resolved in correspondence thereby avoiding such costs.  However, in light of the ambiguity, I order that the costs of the JSL incurred today be paid by the Bank also.