Hong Kong Judgment

Family Court

T, RH v. K, CS

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

After considering the Statement of Costs and the List of Objections, the court summarily assessed the costs at HK$1,140,000 and ordered payment forthwith.

Court disposition

Costs summarily assessed at HK$1,140,000 payable forthwith.

Orders

  • Costs assessed at HK$1,140,000 payable forthwith.

02

Material facts

Parties

T, RH

Petitioner Counsel: Messrs Hugill & Ip

K, CS

Respondent Counsel: Messrs. Withers

Amounts and remedies

  • Costs Awarded: HKD 1,140,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Matrimonial Causes No. 8704 of 2023 / Summary Assessment of Costs

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought MPS/IM against the other party and sought an order for costs supported by a Statement of Costs.
Respondent
The respondent opposed the costs claimed and filed a List of Objections seeking reduction or disallowance of items in the Statement of Costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) and court rules

    The court has power to award costs and to summarily assess costs in matrimonial proceedings

  2. 02

    Common law principle applied in family and civil proceedings

    Costs normally follow the event unless the court orders otherwise

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

After considering the Statement of Costs and the List of Objections, the court summarily assessed the costs at HK$1,140,000 and ordered payment forthwith.

Court disposition

Costs summarily assessed at HK$1,140,000 payable forthwith.

  • Costs assessed at HK$1,140,000 payable forthwith.

Source and reliance status

Family Court · 21 October 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Family Court

Judgment· 21 October 2024

[2024] HKFC 188

bjbj FCMC 8704/2023 [2024] HKFC 188

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 8704 OF 2023 ------------------------

BETWEEN T, RH Petitioner and K, CS Respondent ------------------------ Coram: H.H. Judge C.K. Chan in Chambers (Not Open to Public) Mode of Hearing: By way of written submissions Date of Handing Down Decision: 21 October 2024 -----------------------

D E C I S I O N (Summary Assessment of Costs) ------------------------ On 6 August 2024, I handed down a decision on the Respondent ( s application for MPS/IM against the Petitioner ( ). I also made costs order in favour of M to be summarily assessed, which I now do. After considering M s Statement of Costs and F s List of Objections, the costs of M are now summarily assessed at HK$1,140,000 payable by F forthwith. C. K. Chan District Judge Representation: Messrs Hugill & Ip, solicitors for the Petitioner Messrs. Withers, solicitors for the Respondent

PAGE -

PAGE

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V n]Kn]n]n7 hp~# hp~# gdp?H gdp~# hp~# hp~# hp~# &`#$ o`oLo hn+J hn+J hn+J hn+J hn+J hn+J h*|3 h*|3 hn+J h*|3 hn+J hn+J hn+J hn+J hn+J [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> pWNJ pWNJ &'L- Draft dc_reporter08 Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Dell Computer Corp. Draft Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{C531E7A5-D9BD-41A9-BBDB-6CF846E05EBB}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.