TAM SHUK YIN ANNY v. CHOI KWOK CHAN AND OTHERS

HCMP 2399/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2399 OF 2004

____________

  IN THE MATTER of ACTIVE TEAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, ADVANCE WISE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, WISE APEX ENTERPRISES LIMITED, AND RICHMONDPROPERTIES AND TRADING COMPANY LIMITED
  and
  IN THE MATTER of Section 168A of the Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32

____________

BETWEEN

  TAM SHUK YIN ANNY Petitioner
  and  
   CHOI KWOK CHAN 1st Respondent
  FUNG LAI MEI BETTY 2nd Respondent
  ACTIVE TEAM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 3rd Respondent
  ADVANCE WISE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 4th Respondent
WISE APEX ENTERPRISES LIMITED 5th Respondent
RICHMOND PROPERTIES AND TRADING COMPANY LIMITED 6th Respondent

Before: Hon Kwan J in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions: 3 July 2007

Date of Handing Down of Decision: 6 July 2007

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. This is a summons issued by the petitioner on 22 June 2007, to vary the order nisi for costs in the judgment I handed down on 14 June 2007, to the effect that there be a certificate for two counsel.

2. The 1st and 2nd respondents indicated through their solicitors they would adopt and maintain a neutral stance to this application and have askedto be excused from the hearing. I therefore dispensed with a hearing and considered the application on the basis of the writtensubmission of the petitioner’s counsel. The respondents have not made any written submission.

3. I agree with the petitioner’s counsel that the case amply justified engaging two counsel, in view of the heavy documentation involved,the overlapping of facts which related to four companies, the range of relief sought in the petition, the expert evidence on documentexamination and on accounting, and new issues which continued to be raised by the respondents requiring counsel’s considerationat a very late stage in the preparation for trial. I note also that the 1st and 2nd respondents were likewise represented by two counsel at the trial.

4. I hold that it is necessary and proper for the petitioner to engage two counsel. I vary the order nisi on 14 June 2007 to provide for a certificate for two counsel. I award the costs of this application to the petitioner as part ofher costs of the petition.

  (S Kwan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Miss Theresa Low, instructed by Messrs J Chan, Yip, So & Partners, for the Petitioner

Messrs Howell & Co, for the 1st and 2nd Respondents