ZFY v. SCHC
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 1036
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 July 2022
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From FCMP No.97 of 2020) Child Relocation / Decision on Costs Following Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- CAMP87/2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 12 July 2022
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From FCMP No.97 of 2020) Child Relocation / Decision on Costs Following Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal
- Case number
- CAMP87/2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The renewed application for leave to appeal failed to meet the threshold of a reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the application to vary the costs order is refused and costs follow the event; costs are awarded to the Respondent and summarily assessed at $518,000 including $418,000 for two counsel.
Court disposition
Application refused; costs awarded to the Respondent.
Orders
- Application refused.
- Costs to the Respondent, summarily assessed at $518,000, including $418,000 for two counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
ZFY
Applicant (father) Counsel: Ms Lily Yu (instructed by Nixon Peabody CWL)SCHC
Respondent (mother) Counsel: Ms Alison Choy (instructed by Pansy Leung Tang & Chua)Amounts and remedies
- Total Costs Assessed: HKD 518,000
- Fee for Two Counsel: HKD 418,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From FCMP No.97 of 2020) Child Relocation / Decision on Costs Following Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to vary the costs order
- 02
Whether no order as to costs should be made
- 03
Whether the renewed application for leave to appeal met the threshold of reasonable prospect of success
- 04
Proper application of the costs practice in appeals (TPL v WYY)
- 05
Whether financial disparity justifies departure from costs following the event
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant (Father) applied to vary the Court's costs order and sought no order as to costs of his renewed application for leave to appeal.
- Respondent
- Respondent (Mother) opposed the variation, submitted the renewed application lacked a reasonable prospect of success and that costs should follow the event; argued a no costs order would operate harshly against her.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court decision
Costs are in the discretion of the court.
- 02
Court decision; general costs principle
Costs should normally follow the event unless exceptional circumstances justify departure.
- 03
TPL v WYY (CACV 47/2014)
The costs practice in appeals (as discussed in TPL v WYY) is not a rigid rule.
- 04
Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 FLR 259
A no costs order may operate harshly against a successful party where there is financial disparity.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The renewed application for leave to appeal failed to meet the threshold of a reasonable prospect of success; accordingly the application to vary the costs order is refused and costs follow the event; costs are awarded to the Respondent and summarily assessed at $518,000 including $418,000 for two counsel.
Obiter and limits
- TPL v WYY (CACV 47/2014) recognizes a costs practice in appeals but does not establish a rigid rule.
- Financial disparity between the parties was recognised but did not justify making no order as to costs because that would operate harshly against the successful party.
Court disposition
Application refused; costs awarded to the Respondent.
- Application refused.
- Costs to the Respondent, summarily assessed at $518,000, including $418,000 for two counsel.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal · 12 July 2022
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.
Court of Appeal
Judgment· 12 July 2022
CAMP 87/2022 [2022] HKCA 1036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 87 OF 2022 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMP NO. 97 OF 2020)
BETWEEN ZFY Applicant and
SCHC Respondent (Child Relocation) Before : Hon Cheung, G Lam and Chow JJA in Court Date of Decision on Costs : 12 July 2022
DECISION ON COSTS Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) : The Father seeks to vary the costs order made by this Court on 2 June 2022. He asks for no order as to costs of his application. Costs are in the discretion of the Court. The application before us was a renewed application for leave to appeal. The Judge below had already refused to grant leave. Before us, the Father had likewise failed to satisfy the threshold of showing that his appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. The hearing before us had not even reached the stage of a proper appeal which may engage the ‘costs practice’ discussed in TPL v WYY formerly known as WYY (CACV 47/2014). In any event, that case expressly recognized that the ‘costs practice’ is not a rigid rule. As the proposed challenge was unmeritous, costs should follow the event. We also recognized the financial disparity between the parties. A no costs order will operate harshly against the Mother : see Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 FLR 259. Accordingly, the application is refused with costs to the Mother. We will summarily assess the costs at $518,000 which include $418,000 as fee for two counsel. (Peter Cheung) (Godfrey Lam) (Anderson Chow) Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Ms Lily Yu, instructed by Nixon Peabody CWL, for the Applicant Ms Alison Choy, instructed by Pansy Leung Tang & Chua, for the Respondent
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.