Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of costs

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2023

LAM LAI KIU KELVIN AND NG TSZ KIN BRIAN t/a YU & ASSOCIATES, SOLICITOR v. CHEUNG SAU CHU ROSANNA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2375
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA12/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Defendant failed to identify any arguable question of law or that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by evidence and not perverse; and the refusal to grant further time was a lawful exercise of case management discretion, so no arguable grounds of appeal existed.
11 May 2023

PROPERTY DYNASTY LTD v. BANK JULIUS BÄR & CO. AG aka BANQUE JULIUS BAER & CIE SA, BANCA JULIUS BAER & CO SA, BANK JULIUS BAER & CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1293
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL1/2023

The defendant's estimate was grossly inflated and insufficiently particularised; the amendments to the pleading and supplemental discovery did not justify the claimed quantum to the extent asserted; anticipated expert costs must be reconsidered given court control over expert evidence and the possibility of a single joint expert; applying a robust approach the court fixed additional security at HKD3,000,000 and ordered payment within 14 days, with dismissal if not paid.
9 Aug 2022

HUI (ANNIE) GUO v. YUEDONG XU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2019

The revised bill was found to be grossly inflated and unreliable (notably unexplained additions of significant hours for an associate), the 1st defendant failed to show how prior security had been expended and the bill did not distinguish incurred from projected costs; applying experience and common sense the court fixed a sensible lump sum security of HK$4,600,000 for costs up to and including trial and ordered payment into court within 28 days with a self‑executory dismissal in default.
12 Mar 2020

HUI (ANNIE) GUO v. YUEDONG XU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2019

The defendants' claimed quantum was excessive given the limited complexity of the issues, inflated hourly rates, duplication between solicitors and counsel, and reduction from paper disposal; prior security of HK$600,000 remains appropriate for the strike out stage but an additional adjusted sum of HK$1,000,000 is fair and reasonable, therefore the defendants' application is granted in part and an order nisi is made for the adjusted security.
7 Nov 2019

CHENG KWOK HUNG SAMUAL v. POON TUNG HOI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1384
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI803/2017

O.62 r.34(1) requires the taxing master who made the original taxation to conduct the review; absent disclosure of the amounts of sanctioned payments or offers there was no prejudice warranting a different Master; accordingly the application to adjourn the review before another Master was refused and the review proceeded, with individual bill items allowed, reduced or disallowed according to relevance, necessity and proportionality to the straightforward liability-accepted personal injury claim.
18 Sept 2017

WONG CHI CHING v. BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD

Citation

WONG CHI CHING v. BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/2015

The review is dismissed because the Master found the documents were prepared by counsel and sufficiently complex to justify the original taxed time allowances; an arithmetic minutes‑per‑page formula is legally unsound for taxation and the plaintiff gave no satisfactory explanation for reducing her earlier objections, therefore the taxed allowances for items 15, 16 and 22 are upheld and the plaintiff must pay the costs of the review.
19 Aug 2016

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

KAN WAI CHUNG AND OTHERS v. HAU WUN FAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA811/2010

The Master upheld taxation in accordance with the Court of Appeal's formal costs order, rejected the defendants' attempt to read into the order an exclusion of costs related to the setting aside of the default judgment, maintained specific allowances (including a $250,000 brief fee) while taxing off the $50,000 short‑term counsel fee, and ordered defendants to pay 85% of the costs of the taxation review to be summarily assessed.
29 Jan 2016

FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

FULL PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT LTD v. WONG SEE YIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1801/2010

The master refused the defendants' review because the statutory provisions invoked were inapplicable to party v party taxation, there was no evidential basis to disturb the original taxation rulings (including allegations of duplication, overcharging or breach of certification), the seniority and rates of counsel and solicitors were proper and necessary given complexity, and most grounds had already been fully argued at taxation; accordingly the prior taxation rulings were maintained and the blanket review was refused.
2 Apr 2015

TSAO CHI CHING v. TSAO LUNG MAY

Citation

TSAO CHI CHING v. TSAO LUNG MAY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2013

The court held the applicant did not establish that all items in the Bill of Costs related to the appeal or were payable on a party-and-party basis, reduced the recoverable amount from the claimed figures, and varied the applicant's costs of the appeal to $20,000 to be paid by the respondent.
27 Sept 2013

SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO. LTD

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO. LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2025/2012

Although the defendant adduced credible evidence indicating the plaintiff's precarious financial position, the court exercised its discretionary balancing power under s.357 and declined to order security because the plaintiff had costs awarded in a related winding‑up petition (subject to taxation) and other cross‑debts and practical set‑off considerations meant that ordering security would be unjustified on a broad‑brush assessment; accordingly the defendant's application was dismissed.