Hong Kong Case Law

徐東文 對 萬隆工程控股有限公司（前稱雍盛設計裝飾工程有限公司）

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2025/2024

Court accepted applicant's evidence of daily wage HKD1,600 and average 25 working days per month (monthly HKD40,000); accepted Form 9 as conclusive evidence of 3% permanent loss and 434 days temporary incapacity; respondent failed to rebut s10(2) presumption and default judgment on liability stands; compensation awarded as calculated: permanent loss HKD76,896; temporary incapacity HKD462,933.33; medical HKD1,340; total HKD541,169.33 with interest and costs.

Source excerpt

• Calculation of monthly earnings (s11)
• Permanent loss of earning capacity (s9)
• Temporary incapacity (s10)
• Medical expenses (s10a)
• Conclusive effect of assessment certificates (s16f-16h)
• Default judgment and service

Read case analysis

曹連英 對 駿盈顧問有限公司

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP38/2024

The Court refused leave because the proposed appeal raised only issues of a personal nature and not matters of wide public importance under Cap 484 s22(1)(b), there were no other reasons to justify a CFA appeal, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay and the asserted grounds (delay by respondent's counsel, judge's failure to remind of time limit, solicitor misconduct) had been considered and rejected; the application had no real prospect of success.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Extension of time
• Settlement agreement
• Legal representation duties
• Striking out/exclusion order
• Misrepresentation

Read case analysis

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP11/2025

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any reasonable prospect of success or any legal error in the judge's discretionary costs orders and produced no credible evidence to justify recusal; the applicant also pursued the wrong procedural route and therefore the application was without merit.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Judicial discretion
• Recusal
• Costs assessment
• Procedural time limits

Read case analysis

TANG YISU 對 SUNGUARD SECURITY CO LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC1028/2021

The interim costs order was varied to an absolute order requiring respondent to pay costs relating to the compensation assessment, but the court rejected the applicant's method of claiming $1,500 per attendance and the piecemeal approach; applied Order 62 r28A(3) to fix the recoverable hourly rate at $200 and, after a summary assessment for the 25–26 Feb hearings including preparation time, awarded $4,000 for those hearings while leaving all other costs to be agreed or assessed by the court; no order as to costs of the present application.

Source excerpt

• Interim costs order
• Costs assessment
• Unrepresented litigant hourly rate
• Procedure for varying cost orders

Read case analysis

郭志文 對 機電工程署

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ1559/2025

The cause of action arose on 18 November 2019 so the 3-year limitation under Limitation Ordinance s27 expired on 17 November 2022; the plaintiff provided no credible reasons under s30 to extend time and the delay caused significant prejudice to the defendant; therefore the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was properly struck out under Order 18 r19; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.

Source excerpt

• Time-bar
• Extension of limitation under s30
• Striking out under order 18 r19
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis

張惠蘭 對 中国建築工程(香港)有限公司

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CAMP78/2024

Court found applicant did not serve a complete amended bundle by the deadline; the postal evidence was inconsistent and implausible; applicant failed to give any good and reasonable explanation for both non‑compliance with the 9 September 2024 order and for the delay in applying for relief; therefore relief from sanction was refused and the 15 October 2024 summons dismissed, with costs ordered against the applicant and a paper assessment procedure directed.

Source excerpt

• Relief from sanctions
• Leave to appeal
• Failure to comply with court orders
• Costs

Read case analysis

周宴鋌 對 DOULTSONS LTD

Court

District Court

Case number

DCEC2290/2021

[2025] HKDC 847

Source excerpt

• Costs orders
• Interest on costs
• Order 22(23) applications
• Insurer payment evidence

Read case analysis

曹連英 對 禤氏律師行

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCJ4635/2023

Documentary evidence (signed instruction, discharge, authorization and bank records plus plaintiff's acknowledgements) established that the plaintiff knowingly accepted HK$700,000 as final settlement; the pleaded allegations were contradicted by those documents, were frivolous/vexatious and an abuse of process and therefore all claims were properly struck out and the action dismissed under O.18 r.19.

Source excerpt

• Strike out
• Abuse of process
• Frivolous and vexatious proceedings
• Discharge/settlement validity
• Misleading/duress allegations

Read case analysis

LAW CHUNG TAI v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Court

District Court

Case number

DCPI174/2021

The court held the plaintiff’s letter was not a valid sanctioned offer, declined indemnity costs, and ordered party-and-party costs with specific apportionment for two summonses.

• Sanctioned offer
• Calderbank offer
• Indemnity costs
• Party and party costs
• Order 22 rdc
• Order 62 rdc

Read case analysis

XIAO LONG 訴 LAM TAK YUEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV325/2022

The Court refused leave because the motion raised no question of general or public importance and merely sought to re‑litigate factual findings of the trial court; accordingly leave and the stay were refused and costs were ordered against the moving party.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Stay of execution
• Factual findings
• Public importance
• Costs

Read case analysis