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

Luan Gang v Simpson Marine Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date08 January 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 207
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCA107/2011
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCA107C/2011 LUAN GANG v. SIMPSON MARINE LTD

HCA 107/2011

[2020] HKCFI 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 107 OF 2011

________________________

BETWEEN
LUAN GANG Plaintiff

and
SIMPSON MARINE LIMITED Defendant
________________________

(By Original Action)

AND BETWEEN

SIMPSON MARINE LIMITED Plaintiff

and
LUAN GANG 1st Defendant
OFFTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 2nd Defendant
________________________
(By Counterclaim)

AND

HCAJ 171/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO 171 OF 2011

________________________

BETWEEN
SIMPSON MARINE LIMITED Plaintiff

and
THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR Defendants
VESSEL M/V “MAGGIE”
(an “AZIMUT 43 PLUS” HULL NO 568
HIN:IT AZI 43568E010
CERTIFICATE OF
OWNERSHIP NO 139475
ENGINE NO 46953382 / 46951949)
________________________
(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Mr Justice Reyes dated 1st June 2012)
Before: Hon Ng J in Chambers (Open to the Public)
Date of Hearing: 8 January 2020
Date of Ruling: 8 January 2020

________________________

R U L I N G

________________________

1. This is the ruling of the court. There is before this court an application by summons dated 24 April 2019 under Rules of the High Court, Order 75 rule 13 by the applicants, Mr Luan Gang and Offtech International Limited, for an order that all the money currently in court standing to the credit of the applicants in the consolidated actions of HCA 107 and HCAJ 171/2011 in the sum of HK$2,408,674.20 be released to Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, solicitors for the applicants.

2. The relevant historical background is that the vessel, “Maggie”, was arrested in HCAJ 171 and was subsequently sold by order of the court with the sale proceeds paid into court. HCAJ 171 was consolidated with HCA 107 in June 2012 and the trial of the consolidated action was scheduled to commence before Deputy High Court Judge Hartmann on 3 September 2013. That was adjourned on the first day of trial.

3. The trial was then resumed before this court in October 2015. After trial, by a judgment handed down on 20 May 2016, this court granted judgment in favour of Simpson Marine Limited against Mr Luan in the sum of HK$542,089 together with interest but dismissed Simpson Marine’s counterclaim against Offtech. The sale proceeds paid into court were subsequently used to satisfy the judgment debt and interest and paid to Simpson Marine.

4. On 15 November 2016, this court made its first costs order, including, inter alia, that costs of the action be paid by Mr Luan and Offtech to Simpson Marine, to be taxed if not agreed.

5. On 13 April 2017, this court made its second costs order dealing with various interlocutory costs as well as ordering (i) costs of the hearing on 3 September 2013 be paid by Simpson Marine to Mr Luan, and (ii) costs of Simpson Marine’s counterclaim be paid by Simpson Marine to Offtech, both to be taxed if not agreed.

6. On 27 April 2018, Mr Luan’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal with costs to Simpson Marine.

7. On 20 March 2019, Mr Luan’s application for leave to the CFA was dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. On 24 April 2019, the applicants issued the present summons.

9. As of today, the parties have yet to proceed to taxation of costs. As far as Simpson Marine is concerned, it has instructed a law costs draftsman to prepare bills of costs for the costs of the action and costs of the appeal. The draft bills show a total of around HK$2.7 million comprising HK$2.05 million for the action and HK$658,000 odd for the appeal which exceeds the HK$2.4 million now sitting in court which the applicants seek to release to them in full. These sums do not include Simpson Marine’s costs of taxation.

10. Under Rules of the High Court Order 62 rule 32A, the party entitled to payment of any costs to be taxed is also entitled to costs of taxation. So the totality of the costs claimed by Simpson Marine would be higher than HK$2.7 million. Of course, under party-and-party taxation, the costs that Simpson Marine claims would usually be taxed down but even if they are taxed down by, say, 30 per cent, the taxed costs of the action and the appeal would still be quite substantial, to which costs of taxation would have to be added.

11. The draft bills have only very recently been sent to the solicitors for Mr Luan and Offtech, and Ms...

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