Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Apportionment of costs

Legal area

Court

20 May 2026

YAN MEI and YAN DONG, the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1562/2022

The defendant's summons was dismissed as an abuse of process and misconceived; the defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application, summarily assessed at HK$70,000, apportioned HK$35,000 to P1 and HK$35,000 to P2; the HK$35,000 apportioned to P1 is to be set off against P1's liability under the Unless Order and the costs order nisi is made absolute.
20 May 2026

YAN MEI and YAN DONG, the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA104/2023

The defendant's summons was an abuse of process and misconceived; the costs order nisi was made absolute; a summary assessment is appropriate and the defendant must pay assessed costs of HK$70,000, apportioned HK$35,000 to each of P1 and P2, with the P1 portion to be set off against amounts payable by P1 under the Unless Order and the P2 portion payable forthwith by the defendant.
10 Mar 2026

ORIENTAL TEXTILE PRODUCTS LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1238
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1572/2025

Where directors incurred costs defending proceedings after they had been removed and thus were not acting in or pursuant to their offices, contractual or articles-based indemnities (Article 167(1) and Clause 15) do not cover those costs; absent findings of dishonesty or bad faith, taxation remains on the party-and-party basis; the court may decide contractual indemnity at the costs stage if parties have been given fair opportunity to address the issue.
24 Nov 2025

WONG KOT KI v. FANTASTIC STATE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1992
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4604/2015

Leave to appeal refused because proposed grounds were reargument of factual findings and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the trial judge's findings on the existence of a one-foot foundation, the meaning of 原樣 as visual appearance, and delay by plaintiff were not plainly wrong. Defendant's application to vary costs was allowed in part: the cut-off date for costs consequences is 1 June 2024 with costs consequences from 2 June 2024; indemnity costs were refused because offers were Calderbank and not sanctioned and plaintiff's conduct was not sufficiently unreasonable to war…
22 Sept 2025

CHAN YAT MAN v. TUNG PO (H.K.) TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2904/2017

Each of the defendant's counterclaims for the 12 payments constituted separate heads of claim; the defendant succeeded only in respect of Payments #3 to #5 while the plaintiff succeeded as to the remainder, so costs of the succeeded heads broadly cancel each other and the Costs Order Nisi should be varied accordingly. The court exercised its discretion to substitute the Costs Order Nisi with the Substitution Costs Order and to order that the defendant bear the costs of the Variation Summons, taxed with certificate for counsel and set off against costs otherwise payable by the plaintiff.
15 Sept 2025

CHUNG YING BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LTD (in Liquidation) v. CHOW WAI LAM, WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4279
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA656/2019

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the Plaintiff's summons to vary the Costs Order Nisi and made the Costs Order Nisi absolute because the Applications were not sufficiently severable from the two outstanding applications, apportionment of costs was likely to be contentious (including involvement of D4 only in the Applications), and practical justice required allowing set-off or concurrent taxation by the same taxing master; however, the court ordered on a nisi basis that costs of the Plaintiff's summons be to the 1st to 3rd and 6th Defendants and the 4th Defendant, to be summarily…
13 Jun 2025

NEW ART HOLDINGS CO., LTD. AND OTHERS v. T&T ART CO., LTD (Formerly known as EST-OUEST AUCTIONS CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA325/2024

The court refused to vary the costs orders nisi. It held the Defendants' delay in confirming their stance on the stay application was reasonable given receipt timing and public holidays; the JPY 36,488,200 formed part of the Japanese proceedings so duplication justified the stay application; the Defendants lost only on a discrete construction point and should bear 20% of costs on that issue; accordingly the earlier costs orders were made absolute with the apportionments set out (Plaintiffs to pay Defendants costs of Order 14 Summons; on Defendants' Summonses Defendants liable for 20% and Plai…
20 Feb 2025

WOO KWOK PING v. THE INCORPORATED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF TSUEN WAN TRADE ASSOCIATION PRIMARY SCHOOL

Citation

[2025] HKCA 168
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV282/2023

The court refused to vary the order nisi except for two limited adjustments: costs of the application to the judge for leave to appeal shall exclude costs relating to the factual challenge (Ground 3), and the plaintiff's own costs during legal aid periods are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations; otherwise the defendant must pay the plaintiff the costs of the appeal (including leave applications) and 60% of the plaintiff's costs of the action and counterclaim as ordered, and the defendant must pay the costs of the summons.
28 Jan 2025

CHAN YUK PING v. LIEW SHUK FUI

Citation

[2025] HKDC 140
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1811/2022

The court held that the defendant failed to show the plaintiff ought reasonably to have accepted the 1st and 2nd open offers, but the plaintiff ought reasonably to have accepted the 3rd open offer made 25 October 2023 and rejected 26 October 2023; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi was varied so that the defendant pays the plaintiff's costs up to and including 25 October 2023, and the plaintiff pays 50% of the defendant's costs from 26 October 2023 (including assessment hearing costs) taxable on party and party basis; indemnity costs were refused and no order as to costs was made for the summon…
6 Dec 2024

CHEUNG KWAN HO v. MAN CHEUNG LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2068
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4546/2019

Leave to apply out of time to vary the costs order nisi was refused because the delay resulted from the 1st defendant's and/or its lawyers' failure to follow procedural directions and no good reason excused the delay; on the merits each proposed variation was unjustified: Proposed Order (1) was unreasonable because the 2nd defendant was nominal and merely acted as a witness; Proposed Order (2) was refused because the Judgment's set-off between related claims and the counterclaim was reasonable; Proposed Order (3) was refused because District Court scale and the 40% apportionment previously or…