YAU SHIK YIN v. MAN SHING ELECTRICAL MANUFACTORY LTD AND OTHERS

HCCW 420/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO 420 of 2012

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

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

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

AND

HCCW 421/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO 421 of 2012

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

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

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

AND

HCCW 422/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) NO 422 of 2012 

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

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

(HEARD TOGETHER)

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

DECISION ON COSTS

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

1. On 15 July 2015 I made an order staying the 3 Petitions before me on the application of the Respondents on the grounds that they were settled. I gave an ex tempore judgment and heard the parties on costs. Normally costs would follow the event, but for reasons apparent from my judgment I was considering making some reduction in the Respondents’ entitlement to costs because of what I thought was their unreasonable and petulant conduct. I heard the parties on costs and reserved my decision. This is that decision.

2. It is not in dispute that the Respondents were wholly successful and that normally they would be entitled to their costs.  The issue is whether the costs should be reduced to some degree to reflect the Court’s view that the matter should have been resolved by agreement and that the Respondents’ behaviour materially contributed to the matter coming to Court and resources being wasted.  As I have already said my reasons for taking the view that Respondents’ conduct was unsatisfactory and contributed to a needless hearing taking place is explained in my judgment of 15 July 2015.

3. It is relevant that the Petitioner was also to some degree to blame for an unnecessary application taking place, although in my view he was not as culpable as the Respondents.

4. It seems to me that the Court is entitled to expect all parties to litigation and, importantly, those advising them to approach proceedings with a sense of proportion and mindful of the fact that the Court’s resources are limited and costly and that they should not be engaged unnecessarily.  The Court recognises that litigation results from disagreements and that a degree of animosity between parties is unfortunately going to arise on occasions and some account needs to be made for human nature in judging whether or not a party’s conduct has gone beyond what is acceptable and contributed to wasted resources: both of the parties and of the Court.

5. In my view the Respondents’ behaviour does go beyond what is acceptable.  Their insistence on the condition referred to in paragraph 9 of my earlier judgment was clearly unnecessary and unreasonable.  If it had not been insisted on the Respondents’ application would have been unnecessary.  Some allowance needs to be made for the fact that the Petitioner could, rather than stand on his dignity, have agreed to it.  In my view an appropriate order is that the Petitioner pays the Respondents 60% of their costs of the application with a certificate for 1 counsel.