Wong Chung Chi v Yuilley Building Materials Company Ltd And Others

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCCW367/2016
Judgment Date:11 Dec 2019
Neutral Citation:[2019] HKCFI 3005
HCCW367A/2016 WONG CHUNG CHI v. YUILLEY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

HCCW 367/2016

[2019] HKCFI 3005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS NO. 367 OF 2016

___________________

IN THE MATTER of sections 724 and 725 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) (“Ordinance”)

and

IN THE MATTER of section 177(1)(f) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32)

and

IN THE MATTER of Yuilley Building Materials Company Limited (“Company”)

__________________

BETWEEN

WONG CHUNG CHI (王松智) Petitioner
and
YUILLEY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LIMITED (銳力建築材料有限公司) 1st Respondent
WONG TAK SING (王德勝) 2nd Respondent
WONG TAK HING (王德興) 3rd Respondent

__________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 11 December 2019
Date of Decision: 11 December 2019

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1. This is the Respondents’ application to vary the costs order nisi made in the Order of this court dated 21 February 2019 by which the Petition was dismissed with costs to be paid by the Petitioner. The Respondents seek an order for such costs to be taxed on indemnity basis.

2. There are 3 bases advanced in support of this application, namely: (a) the Petitioner had no real intention of pursuing the remedy of a winding up order; (b) the conduct of the Petitioner was unconscionable in pursuing the Petition in light of the findings made by the court; and (c) the Petitioner had failed to accept any of offers made by the Respondents to settle these proceedings.

3. Costs are matters within the discretion of the court. I propose to deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents succinctly. Firstly, the pursuit of a winding up remedy was not a main issue at the trial. That is reflected in the Judgment dated 21 February 2019. There was no application to strike out that relief. There is no evidence that the normal costs order would result in unfairness to the Respondents by reason of this issue.

4. On the alleged unconscionable conduct, it should be said that the court does not order indemnity costs against a losing party as a matter of course. In most cases, adverse findings of...

To continue reading

Request your trial