The High Court has rejected an application for summary judgment of a claim to release money frozen by a bank. This was in the context of an investigation into the alleged use of the account for criminal activity. In its defence, the bank argued that the customer agreement contained an implied term that the bank could act on evidence of suspected fraudulent conduct to suspend operation of the account.
The Court of Final Appeal recently reaffirmed the principles applicable when the courts consider making an enhanced award of costs in favour of the successful party (ie, 'indemnity costs'). The judgment makes it clear that the courts' discretion to award indemnity costs is unrestricted – although, as a basic requirement, such costs should be ordered only when it is appropriate to do so and the receiving party must be able to show that the case has some special or unusual feature.
In re Zadeh v Registrar of Companies, the Court of First Instance held that an application by an overseas company to intervene as a party in existing proceedings in Hong Kong did not expose it to a liability to provide security for costs and that, even if the court did have jurisdiction to order security for costs, it would not have ordered the intervener to do so. Although security for costs against overseas or dubiously solvent plaintiffs is a useful tool in civil litigation, this case demonstrates some of the procedural limits.
In Poon v Poon, the defendant successfully applied to have certain paragraphs excluded from witness statements filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis that they referred to without prejudice conversations and meetings. The judgment applies established principles that underpin the protection given to without prejudice communications and demonstrates the court's reluctance to allow a party to 'cherry pick' from parts of wide-ranging discussions that were clearly undertaken on a without prejudice basis.
In Zhang Hong Li & Ors v DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd & Ors, the Court of Final Appeal interpreted a so-called 'anti-Bartlett clause' in a trust deed and held that it excluded the imposition of a "high-level supervisory duty" on the trustee to supervise or review the investment decisions of an investment adviser appointed by the underlying private investment company.