Chinachem Financial Services Ltd v Century Venture Holdings Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date07 May 2014
Judgement NumberHCA410/2013
Subject MatterCivil Action
HCA410A/2013 CHINACHEM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD v. CENTURY VENTURE HOLDINGS LTD

HCA 410/2013 & HCMP 2299/2013

HCA 410/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 410 OF 2013

______________________

BETWEEN

CHINACHEM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Plaintiff
and
CENTURY VENTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED Defendant

______________________

AND

HCMP 2299/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2299 OF 2013

______________________

IN THE MATTER of the Affirmation of Lam Yee Hung dated 18 June 2013 filed in the High Court Action No 410 of 2013
and
IN THE MATTER of Section 21L of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4)

______________________

BETWEEN

CHINACHEM FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Plaintiff
and
CENTURY VENTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED Defendant

______________________

(Heard together)

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Ramanathan, SC in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 7 May 2014
Date of Decision: 7 May 2014

_____________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The application before me today, firstly from the defendant, is for leave to appeal in HCA 410 of 2013 in the event leave is required. Their primary position is that leave is not required.

2. The further application by the defendant is for the variation of the costs order nisi which I made when I handed down my judgment on 25 March 2014.

3. In essence, the defendant says that they are entitled to the costs of the hearing before Godfrey Lam J on 23 August 2013 by reason of the fact that the plaintiff should have issued an originating summons rather than a summons under the action and this involved a duplication of costs.

4. The plaintiff also has an application for variation, but more in the nature of a clarification of my costs order nisi so that it will avoid any argument on taxation as to what my order actually covers.

5. Having carefully reviewed the arguments put before me by both Mr Suen for the defendant and Mr Huggins SC for the plaintiff, and having looked at the Rules of the High Court, I am of the view that in respect of HCA 410 of 2013, leave would be required by the defendant to appeal against my decision. I however have no hesitation in granting leave as far as that is concerned because, as I see it, the defendant is already appealing in my judgment relation to HCMP 2299 of 2013. Since the reliefs sought by the plaintiff and the orders that I made are...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT