（陳海瀅） 陳鈺蘭（以及家庭嬰孩兒其本人） 對 九龍城裁判法院少年法庭案件編號（家庭嬰孩兒）（KCJP29/2018） KCJP122/2018 （及KCJP49/2016）於2018年10月26日惡意行事、惡意審判的裁判官黃國輝

（陳海瀅） 陳鈺蘭（以及家庭嬰孩兒其本人） 對 九龍城裁判法院少年法庭案件編號（家庭嬰孩兒）（KCJP29/2018） KCJP122/2018 （及KCJP49/2016）於2018年10月26日惡意行事、惡意審判的裁判官黃國輝

The applicant failed to produce fresh or sufficient grounds to justify a late application to vary the interim costs order; repetition of previously rejected allegations and disagreement with earlier judgments are not legally adequate reasons to displace the ordinary costs rule—therefore the out‑of‑time application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 2055
Parties
Plaintiff: 陳海瀅; Plaintiff: 陳鈺蘭; Defendant: 黃國輝 WONG Kwok-fai, Raymond
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2025
Case Number
DCCJ7586/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Variation Application (district Court) / Application for Extension of Time to Change Interim Costs Order (out of Time)
Outcome
Out‑of‑time application to vary the interim costs order refused; the interim costs order converted to an absolute order; no order as to costs of this application (respondent absent).
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Interim Costs Order, Conversion to Absolute Order, Costs Discretion
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Costs Judicial Review Extension of Time Interim Costs Order Conversion to Absolute Order Costs Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

陳海瀅

Plaintiff

陳鈺蘭

Plaintiff

黃國輝 WONG Kwok-fai, Raymond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Variation Application (district Court) / Application for Extension of Time to Change Interim Costs Order (out of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to vary an interim costs order
  2. 2 Whether the applicant advanced sufficient fresh or exceptional grounds to displace the ordinary rule that the losing party pays costs
  3. 3 Whether repetition of previously rejected allegations and disagreement with earlier judgments can justify late relief

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to produce fresh or sufficient grounds to justify a late application to vary the interim costs order; repetition of previously rejected allegations and disagreement with earlier judgments are not legally adequate reasons to displace the ordinary costs rule—therefore the out‑of‑time application is refused and the interim costs order is made absolute.

Court Disposition

Out‑of‑time application to vary the interim costs order refused; the interim costs order converted to an absolute order; no order as to costs of this application (respondent absent).

Orders

  • The applicant's application dated 6 November 2025 for late variation of the interim costs order is refused.
  • The interim costs order (made provisionally payable) is converted into an absolute order.