Hangzhou Lianchuang Yongjun Kechuang Equity Investment Partnership (LP) v Zaichang Ye - Judgment
Classification of proceedings as civil rather than criminal for costs purposes; application of GCR O.62 r.4(2) and (5) via Court of Appeal Rules r.28; principle that costs follow the event in civil appeals; whether judicial review of a magistrates ruling by a criminal defendant changes the applicable costs regime; arguments analogising to criminal appeals and protective costs orders; assessment of publicinterest and novelty factors; relevance of respondents being statefunded; recoverability of costs for salaried government counsel; authorities on inhouse legal cost recovery including Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC and Re Eastwood; courts discretion whether to depart from ordinary rule; courts conclusion that appellant voluntarily chose civil JR route and must bear respondents costs
All PDF copies on file (1)
Every PDF we hold for this judgment is listed here, including legacy versions pulled from earlier upstream pipelines. Each carries a provenance note so the source of each copy is explicit.
Processing-run history (2)
Every time a PDF for this judgment has been put through the AI/OCR pipeline we record what we found. Lets us decide which PDFs to re-process when a better model lands.
0.2.0-akn
run #61393 · quality 0.87
court
0.2.0-akn
run #3463 · quality 0.77
cause_number
neutral_citation
judgment_date
court
| Neutral Citation | [2026] CICA (Civ) 1 |
|---|---|
| Cause Number | CICA (CIVIL) APPEAL NO. 0025 OF 2024 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Judge | Segal J |
| Parties | Hangzhou Lianchuang Yongjun Kechuang Equity Investment Partnership (LP) v Zaichang Ye - Judgment |
| Judgment Date | 2026-Feb-17 |
| Subject | Classification of proceedings as civil rather than criminal for costs purposes; application of GCR O.62 r.4(2) and (5) via Court of Appeal Rules r.28; principle that costs follow the event in civil appeals; whether judicial review of a magistrates ruling by a criminal defendant changes the applicable costs regime; arguments analogising to criminal appeals and protective costs orders; assessment of publicinterest and novelty factors; relevance of respondents being statefunded; recoverability of costs for salaried government counsel; authorities on inhouse legal cost recovery including Henderson v Merthyr Tydfil UDC and Re Eastwood; courts discretion whether to depart from ordinary rule; courts conclusion that appellant voluntarily chose civil JR route and must bear respondents costs |
| Category | Civil |
| Filename (current) | CICACIV0025202402172026ISLANDPOOL.pdf |
| File MD5 | d5bd32570bd6826a37897936e873208d |
| Source pipeline | pdb |
| PDB record ID | 3268 |
| PDB URL | https://judicial.ky/n0c-storage/judgments-repository2/25-06-30-In-the-matter-of-Hangzhou-v-Zaichang-Judgment.pdf |