← All Authorities
Hong Kong costs orderspart 36 and calderbankindemnity costshk sanctioned offers and payments

Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Secretary for Justice

[2016] HKCA 442
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Appeal
Year2016
StatusBinding authority

Summary

HK Court of Appeal considered costs on indemnity basis and the application of Calderbank offers within the HK sanctioned offer regime.

Key Principle

costs; indemnity basis; Calderbank offers in HK; sanctioned offer regime

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Secretary for Justice and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Chinachem Charitable Foundatio...