Hong Kong Judgment

Court of Appeal

ZFY v. SCHC

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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

  1. 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

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

  1. 01

    Court decision

    Costs are in the discretion of the court.

  2. 02

    Court decision; general costs principle

    Costs should normally follow the event unless exceptional circumstances justify departure.

  3. 03

    TPL v WYY (CACV 47/2014)

    The costs practice in appeals (as discussed in TPL v WYY) is not a rigid rule.

  4. 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.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment· 12 July 2022

[2022] HKCA 1036

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

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.

TPL v WYY (CACV 47/2014)

Case cited

Keller v Keller and Legal Aid Board [1995] 1 FLR 259

Case cited

CAMP 87/2022 [2022] HKCA 1036

Case cited

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.