16 Feb 2026
Refused certification: first proposed question did not arise because a reason (albeit short) was given; second question not reasonably arguable because s.9J(2) CPO confers a discretionary power to award costs to be exercised in light of all circumstances and there is no general rule entitling a successful bail applicant to reasonable costs.
21 Jan 2026
The trial judge erred by relying on the appellant’s ambiguous WhatsApp apology (P1(14)) as a clear admission while having rejected the complainant’s evidence; read in context the message did not amount to an unequivocal admission of a touching constituting the charged offence, and therefore there was no proper basis to withhold costs under Cap.492 s.3 — appeal allowed and costs awarded.
28 Jan 2025
The magistrate properly applied Lam Chiu Fong: the prosecution's discontinuance did not automatically entitle the appellant to costs because there were positive reasons to refuse costs — the appellant's suspicious conduct, corroborated by CCTV and recovery of watches at his residence, combined with his failure to offer an explanation, justified the refusal; the High Court found no error in law or material factual mistake and dismissed the appeal, affirming the refusal of costs.
14 Dec 2022
The court refused the defendant's costs application because there were positive reasons to deny costs: independent evidence and indicators of self‑incriminating conduct existed (phone messages, CCTV/witness evidence of intoxication and presence, fingerprints, fibres, saliva/DNA and medical findings) and the prosecution discontinued only because the complainant became unfit and unwilling to testify, not because the case lacked a prima facie basis.
22 Apr 2022
The court found no conduct by the appellant that was sufficiently connected to the charged offence to constitute self‑exposure or to have misled the prosecution; the conviction was quashed on merits (not merely technical); accordingly the appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the original trial and the appeal, with any dispute as to amount to be assessed by the taxing officer.
23 Apr 2020
A2's conviction was unsafe because the trial judge failed to analyse and distinguish the statutory defences under s26 and s26AAB and applied an incorrect/overly demanding assessment of 'reasonable diligence' and insufficiently considered evidence favourable to A2 (including mixed results of seized goods and meeting notes); therefore quashing the conviction was just. A1's refusal of costs was overturned because the trial judge lacked positive reasons to deny costs and failed properly to treat A1's cautioned statements and available favourable evidence; A1 is entitled to trial costs but not two…
16 Apr 2020
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the trial judge clearly went outside the ambit of his discretion in refusing costs; the WhatsApp messages and the applicant's conduct were properly open to the judge as relevant background to the complainant's allegations and to the exercise of his discretion.
6 Sept 2019
The High Court granted leave to appeal limited to the legal question whether an employer, as a witness, may recover business losses for attending a Small Claims Tribunal hearing because this is a contentious question of law that the tribunal did not address; the court held the tribunal properly required evidence (eg. business registration) to establish the employer's existence and did not err in refusing to adjourn for the other case, so those grounds fail.
6 Sept 2017
The judge found, on the balance of the evidence, that the applicant's claim of a HK$95,000 loan was not true and there was no basis to conclude the trial judge's factual findings were clearly wrong; therefore the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and leave was refused, with costs awarded to the respondent.
5 May 2017
The Court refused the adjournment and lifted the stay because the defendant's legal aid application was made at the last minute, appeared to be an attempt to delay the hearing, and the evidence (ownership of two mortgage-free properties) indicated she may not qualify for legal aid; accordingly the appeal was ordered to proceed and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.