Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Fung Tin Yau (In His Own Capacity And Suing As A Shareholder Of Maxfortune Trading Ltd And On Behalf Of Maxfortune Trading Ltd As Shareholder Of Samdor Co Ltd) v Fung Tin Shing And Others

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date04 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1051
Subject MatterCompanies Winding-up Proceedings
Judgement NumberHCCW172/2016
HCCW170C/2016 FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

HCCW 170/2016, HCCW 171/2016,
HCCW 172/2016, HCA 2225/2016
HCA 2078/2017, HCA 2998/2017,
HCA 2999/2017, HCA 3000/2017,
HCA 133/2018, HCA 136/2018,
HCA 1291/2018
(Consolidated)

[2020] HKCFI 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING‑UP) PROCEEDINGS NOS 170, 171, 172 OF 2016
AND

ACTION NOS 2225 OF 2016, 2078, 2998, 2999, 3000 OF 2017,

133, 136, 1291 OF 2018

_____________

BETWEEN

FUNG TIN YAU (馮天佑) (in his own capacity and
suing as a shareholder of Maxfortune Trading Limited
and on behalf of Maxfortune Trading Limited as
shareholder of Samdor Company Limited)

 Petitioner
and
FUNG TIN SHING (馮天承) 1st Respondent
FUNG WING SEE (馮穎思) 2nd Respondent
LAI NG NUI (賴五女) 3rd Respondent
FUNG WING YAN (馮穎欣) 4th Respondent
FUNG WING YIN (馮穎賢) 5th Respondent
GREAT ANCHOR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 6th Respondent
MAXFORTUNE TRADING LIMITED 7th Respondent
PREMIUM MANAGEMENT LIMITED 8th Respondent
WYSE INVESTMENT LIMITED 9th Respondent
SAMDOR COMPANY LIMITED 10th Respondent

_____________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions by the Petitioner: 13 February 2020

Date of Written Submissions by the Respondents: 25 March 2020

Date of Reply Submissions by the Petitioner: 1 April 2020

Date of Decision on Costs: 4 June 2020

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1. On 23 January 2020, I handed down my Decisions on the 3 Sets of Appeals [1] (the “Appeal Decisions”[2]). On 4 March 2020, I handed down further my Decisions on the Direction Summons and the Costs Summons (the “Direction & Costs Decisions”[3]). I made certain costs orders nisi therein. Parties have since made submissions for variation of those orders. Below are my decisions on costs.

2. In this Decision, I will refer to Madam Lai, Andy, Jenny, Wing Yan, Wing Yin, Great Anchor, Maxfortune, Premium, Wyse and Samdor individually as such, and collectively as the Respondents. I will call TY the Petitioner.

The 3 Sets of Appeals

3. In respect of the Appeal Decisions, the Petitioner seeks a variation of the costs order nisi so as to cover also the costs of the Directions Hearing on 11 January 2019. Those costs have been reserved. He also seeks summary assessment and immediate payment of the costs of the 3 Sets of Appeals. The amount stated in the relevant Statement of Costs of 13 February 2020 (“P’s Statement of Costs”) is HK$816,171.90.

4. In reply, the only objection made on behalf of the Respondents relates to quantum. Mr Tang on their behalf submits[4] that the costs stated in P’s Statement of Costs should be substantially taxed down “because the Petitioner’s legal team just repeated or regurgitated their work already done before the Masters, and they have done negligible additional work for the Appeals”.

5. I do not accept the submission that the 3 Sets of Appeals were just repetition or regurgitation of the hearings before the learned Masters. Mr Ho has in his written submissions of 1 April 2020[5] drawn to my attention §15 of the written submission made on the Respondents’ behalf during the Directions Hearing on 11 January 2019, that:

“ It is pompous and inappropriate for [the Petitioner] to suggest that the appeal hearings are mere regurgitations of the hearings before the Masters. Although no new evidence can be adduced at the appeal hearings, there is otherwise no restriction requiring the appellants to argue and present their cases in the same way as they did before the Masters. Appellants are not debarred from relying on different or additional authorities on the appeal hearing.”

6. I accept Mr Ho’s submissions that in the circumstances, the Petitioner and his legal representatives were justified in approaching the 3 Sets of Appeals as de novo hearings before the Court.

7. I have considered P’s Statement of Costs. Necessarily I adopt a broad brush approach. In my view, the total Professional Work (D1‑D8) of 17 hours is, with 2 counsel having being engaged, too high. 10 hours would in my view have been reasonable. The attendance of 2 counsel (total brief fees of HK$113,000) for the Directions Hearing on 11 January 2019 (which appears to have lasted no more than 30...

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