In Sharp v Blank the High Court considered the defendants' application for approval of their revised cost budget on the basis that there had been significant developments in the litigation. The judgment provides helpful clarification of the court's jurisdiction to approve costs that have already been incurred between the date of the original approved budget and the date of the application hearing.
A recent case provides a nice illustration of some of the problems associated with seeking to enforce a judgment debt against money in a bank account. The defendant judgment debtor was a joint account holder together with his brother. The brother successfully applied to discharge a provisional garnishee order obtained by the plaintiff judgment creditor on the basis that, as a matter of law, money held in a joint bank account could not be attached unless both account holders were judgment debtors.
In The ECU Group plc v HSBC Bank plc the High Court held that HSBC, the proposed defendant, had to provide pre-action disclosure of Bloomberg messages, emails, trading data and compliance documents. The decision is a useful example of the categories of documents that the court may be prepared to order against a bank in respect of pre-action disclosure. However, the scope of disclosure was kept narrow, a factor which no doubt played in ECU's favour.
The long-awaited increase in the guideline solicitors' hourly rates adopted for party and party taxation in civil proceedings was announced towards the end of 2017. The new rates came into effect on January 1 2018 and should serve to narrow the gap between successful litigants' incurred and recoverable costs.
The English High Court recently found that service by email of arbitration proceedings was not valid under Section 76 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the correspondence had been directed to the email address of an employee who did not have the authority to accept service. The judge found that in circumstances where service is by way of an individual email address, validity of service depends on the application of agency principles.
Section 740 of the Companies Ordinance can be a powerful tool in assisting shareholders to obtain inspection of a company's documents. Two new cases demonstrate the continued use of Section 740 by shareholders to obtain inspection of corporate documents. While they show that the courts are generally willing to assist shareholders in appropriate cases, the courts will often rein in applications either by limiting the scope of the inspection or imposing conditions to the order granted.
There has been a number of recent cases in Hong Kong in which successful parties have been awarded their costs on a more generous basis against unsuccessful parties – known as an 'indemnity' basis (in contrast to what is commonly called a 'standard' or 'party and party' basis). A recent example in the Court of Appeal is Qiyang Ltd v Mei Li New Energy Ltd. One might be forgiven for sometimes thinking that orders for indemnity costs are a norm, but they are not.
The Supreme Court recently clarified that when applying the 'but for' test in the context of a negligent valuation, the basic comparison is between the position that the claimant would have been in if the defendant had fulfilled its duty of care and the claimant's actual position. This means that a defendant cannot be liable for a greater loss than was caused by its negligent valuation.
The High Court recently considered the extent to which legal advice privilege could attach to documents which were not communications of legal advice between lawyer and client, but from which privileged legal advice could be inferred, and held that privilege could indeed apply to such documents. The test is whether there is a "definite and reasonable foundation" for such an inference to be made as opposed to material that would merely make the reader speculate what the legal advice was.
The Supreme Court recently held that the test for dishonesty should be assessed only by reference to whether the defendant's conduct is dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary, reasonable and honest people. In its ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that there were convincing grounds for holding that the second limb of the well-known Ghosh test did not correctly represent the law and that directions based on it should no longer be given.
First Asia Finance International Ltd v Tso Au Yim & Yeung appears to be another example of a misconceived claim against a defendant solicitors' firm. In this case, the court held that the solicitors owed no duty of care to the plaintiff company (which was not a client) with respect to the preparation of a settlement agreement. The plaintiff also failed with a claim that it had informally retained the defendant solicitors with respect to the drafting of the settlement agreement.
A recent application made by the insolvency practitioner of Agrokor, a major Croatian conglomerate, resulted in recognition in England of a stay of civil proceedings against the group. The purpose of the application was to halt any proceedings in relation to Agrokor's securities and debt obligations containing English law and jurisdiction provisions, pending the restructuring in the Croatian insolvency proceedings of the group's affairs.
The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has cast a wide net with its use of civil proceedings pursuant to Section 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance. Recently, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal arising out of the SFC's use of Section 213 proceedings to obtain declarations that three defendants based in Hong Kong had contravened Section 300 of the ordinance by engaging in a deceptive course of business in transactions involving shares listed on an overseas stock exchange.
The Commercial Court recently clarified the test for 'special circumstances' in applications for permission to use previously disclosed documents. The court did not grant permission to the applicant in this instance, on jurisdictional grounds. However, in setting out a number of factors which influence its discretion to waive or vary the restriction, the court has given useful guidance to those that may pursue applications for collateral use in future.
In Far Wealth Ltd v Lo Ki Mou the High Court dismissed the proceedings as an abuse of process because the plaintiffs could have protected their position by way of a counterclaim in prior proceedings commenced against them by the defendants. While fact specific, it is clear from the judgment that the court was exercising a wide discretion based on the "underlying objectives" of the court rules.
The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal relating to whether complex, loss-making financial transactions were enforceable against the respondent in circumstances where they had been entered into against the backdrop of a corrupt relationship between the appellant counterparty and the respondent's agent. The court's decision demonstrates that appellate courts are willing to apply equitable principles creatively in order to avoid what they perceive to be substantial injustice.
The Court of Appeal recently applied established English conflict of laws rules in holding that a non-bearer holder of issued notes was not entitled to sue under those notes for breach of contract. In doing so, the court has provided commercial certainty to downstream holders of interests in securities, but left open important questions as to third-party redress under these structures.
In Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd v UPL Europe Ltd disclosed documents were used by the UPL companies for a collateral purpose in breach of Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 31.22. Grosvenor applied to the court under CPR 81.14(1) for permission to bring committal proceedings against the UPL companies and their law firm. The decision underlines the difficulty involved in persuading a court to allow an application for committal proceedings.
In Competition Commission v Nutanix Hong Kong Ltd a High Court judge recently considered the scope of the 'direct use prohibition' contained in Section 45(2) of the Competition Ordinance, which protects a person who is required to answer questions as part of an investigation by the Competition Commission pursuant to Section 42. The case decides that the protection does not extend to a third party, even where the third party is the subject of the commission's investigation.
The Court of Appeal recently upheld a decision to allow summary judgment for sums due under a facility agreement, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the facility agreement – based on the Loan Market Association model form – constituted the lenders' standard terms for the purposes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Had the act applied, the terms of the facility agreement would have been subject to a reasonableness test.