Li v Ye (No 2)

I published my judgment in this matter on 18 September 2024. [1] I shall use the same abbreviations here.

I concluded that, for the most part, the oppression alleged by the plaintiffs had not been established and that the oppression alleged by the defendant had been established.

I concluded that the relevant companies in the Shield Group should be wound up.

That has now happened.

I am now dealing with the costs of the proceedings.

For the plaintiffs, Mr Edney, who did not appear at the hearing, accepted that the plaintiffs:

Mr Edney submitted that, nonetheless, the plaintiffs had established what he described as their “Money Claims” albeit in circumstances where, because the Shield Group companies have now been wound up, the precise amount of those Money Claims was not determined.

Mr Edney continued:

Mr Edney accepted that it would not be practicable to make a costs order that “carves out” the Money Claims and that the appropriate course would be for me to order that the plaintiffs pay a percentage of the defendants’ costs. Mr Edney suggested that that percentage be 80%.

There is some substance in Mr Edney’s submissions.

Thus, in my judgment, I found:

However, I continued by stating:

On the other hand, in relation to Robin I concluded:

The difficulty that the plaintiffs had in relation to these, and the other claims made in the proceedings, was evident by reason of what I described as being the “wider background” to the proceedings which are summarised as follows:

Those factors pointed to the inevitability of the Shield companies being wound up regardless of the merits of the claims made by the parties. This proposal was embraced by the defendants from the outset, subject to the “one exception” to which I referred at [435] and only belatedly embraced by the plaintiffs.

In these circumstances, I am persuaded that the appropriate order is that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.

I make the following further orders to dispose of the proceedings: