Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calderbank/without prejudice offers

Legal area

Court

25 Aug 2023

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA518/2022

Only the defendant's Calderbank/without prejudice offer ground succeeded: SEKSL imposed pre‑conditions and effectively refused to engage in constructive settlement negotiations, breaching the duty to co‑operate and to explore settlement in good faith; that conduct justified indemnity costs from the date after SEKSL's rejection of the January 2023 offer. Other grounds (injunction conduct, alleged disingenuous or hopeless submissions, and that the action was vexatious or abusive) were not made out to the standard required for indemnity costs. Consequently the Order Nisi was varied to require SE…
3 Feb 2023

ACCURATE CONTRACTORS & RENOVATORS CO LTD v. EVANGEL COLLEGE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 291
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT78/2021

Applying O 62 r 32A and the court's discretion, the taxed reductions (profit costs and disbursements reduced to c.38% of claims), the unreasonable inflation of items, the Applicant's delay and unrealistic offers, and the de minimis excess (HK$9,490.27) over the Calderbank offer justified ordering that the Respondent pay the Applicant's taxation costs only up to 18 April 2022 and the Applicant pay the Respondent's costs thereafter; Applicant also ordered to pay Respondent's costs of the application (summarily assessed).
4 Jan 2018

MGB aka MAG v. GCB

Citation

[2018] HKFC 8
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5376/2015

The judge exercised discretion to refuse variation of the earlier no order as to costs and to make it absolute because, on the facts, the Husband's earlier Calderbank offers were not uniformly effective (insufficient time or disclosure in the first offer) and the case was exceptional such that making no order as to costs was just; the Wife's challenge on miscalculation lacked procedural basis and was refused, but leave to appeal was granted on the clean break/nominal maintenance ground because there was a real issue to be argued given the Wife's medical evidence and future needs.
20 May 2008

CHAN CHI MING v. BRILLIANT RISE CONTAINER DEPOT LTD t/a 逸昇重櫃場 AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN CHI MING v. BRILLIANT RISE CONTAINER DEPOT LTD t/a 逸昇重櫃場 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1110/2003

The court held that Ko & Chow failed to show cause and must personally indemnify the plaintiff for wasted costs; the Calderbank offers did not affect the plaintiff's entitlement to costs of the summons because they did not address the substantive issue of liability which was resolved in the plaintiff's favour; wasted costs are to be taxed on an indemnity basis and the costs of the plaintiff's summons are to be taxed on a common fund basis; KC's procedural delay and late evidence justified higher scale costs for the summons.

Hong Kong Case Law

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

ACCURATE CONTRACTORS & RENOVATORS CO LTD v. EVANGEL COLLEGE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE LTD

MGB aka MAG v. GCB

CHAN CHI MING v. BRILLIANT RISE CONTAINER DEPOT LTD t/a 逸昇重櫃場 AND ANOTHER