MAN TAI SANG AND OTHERS v. MAN SHEK TONG AND ANOTHER
HTML content
HCA 2232/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2232 OF 2014
____________
| BETWEEN | ||
| MAN TAI SANG (文泰山) | 1st Plaintiff | |
| MAN LUNG KIN (文龍健) | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| MAN WAI KEI (文偉基) | 3rd Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHING NGAU (文春牛) | 4th Plaintiff | |
| MAN FU CHOI (文富財) | 5th Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHUN SANG (文春生) | 6th Plaintiff | |
| MAN WAI SING (文偉聲) | 7th Plaintiff | |
| MAN KAM PUN (文錦彬) | 8th Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHAN LEUNG (文燦良) | 9th Plaintiff | |
| MAN YAU FOOK (文有福) | 10th Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHING YU (文清餘) | 11th Plaintiff | |
| MAN YUN KAU (文潤球) | 12th Plaintiff | |
| MAN YUEN NGA (文炫雅) | 13th Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHUN LIN (文春連) | 14th Plaintiff | |
| MAN HEUNG WAH (文向華) | 15th Plaintiff | |
| MAN LAI SHEK (文麗石) | 16th Plaintiff | |
| MAN YING KIT (文英傑) | 17th Plaintiff | |
| MAN HO SANG (文河生) | 18th Plaintiff | |
| MAN PING KWAI (文炳桂) | 19th Plaintiff | |
| MAN SHIU KUEN (文少權) | 20th Plaintiff | |
| MAN CHIU ON (文醮安) | 21st Plaintiff | |
and | ||
| MAN SHEK TONG (文石堂) | 1st Defendant | |
| MAN ON SUM (文安心) | 2nd Defendant | |
____________
Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 24 November 2017
Date of Decision: 24 November 2017
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
1. On 21 May 2015, Deputy Judge Kent Yee made an order in the present proceedings varying an undertaking of the defendants to provide for the amount of legal costs for HCA 881/2012 to be approved by the court. Otherwise, the undertakings were to restrain the defendants from dealing with the bank accounts of the Tso.
2. The summons before me is taken out by the defendants in their personal capacity to seek a sum of $965,000 for the legal costs of the Tso in HCA 881/2012. The trial of that case is due to start on 5 December 2017, in less than two weeks’ time.
3. The present application faces procedural defect. The defendants in the present case are being sued in their personal capacity. This application is made on behalf of the Tso but the Tso is not before the court. In addition, it appears that the proper procedure ought to be for the Tso, through its managers, to apply for legal costs out of the Tso by way of a Beddoe application. This procedure is not followed in today’s application.
4. There are certain other matters on the merits of the application pointed out by Mr Koo, counsel for the plaintiffs, in this case. However, the plaintiffs are not representing the Tso although they are beneficiaries of the Tso. I make no comment on the merits of this application, but for the failure to follow the Beddoe procedure, it is not appropriate for the court at this stage to allow withdrawal of close to a million dollars for a piece of litigation involving the Tso.
5. I therefore dismiss the present summons. But this is without prejudice to the Tso and/or the defendants, if appropriate, to make the proper application for payment out from the Tso’s assets for the legal costs for HCA 881/2012.
(Submissions on costs)
6. Costs are summarily assessed at $110,000, to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
| (Queeny Au-Yeung) | |
| Judge of the Court of First Instance | |
| High Court |
Mr Ernest Koo and Mr Jay Cheung, instructed by Christine M Koo & Ip, Solicitors & Notaries LLP, for the plaintiffs
Mr Anthony Cheung, instructed by K M Cheung & Co, for the defendants