Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Calderbank offers

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

CHENG CHING FONG v. TING SHUK KAY PEGGY, Executrix of the Will of TING SOK HANG, deceased

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2834/2016

The 1 March 2024 letter was not a valid sanctioned offer under O.22 because it included a costs provision ('no order as to costs') inconsistent with the automatic costs consequences in O.22 r.21; although the plaintiff obtained a better result on the Pearl City Property (and thus did better than the Offer), the court declined to award indemnity costs or enhanced interest because the global costs nisi order had already accounted for the defendant's conduct and, on balance, indemnity costs were not justified; plaintiff's summons was dismissed.
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…
17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2172/2020

Sanctioned payments were valid and Applicant failed to obtain judgments better than those payments; accordingly, under Rules of District Court O.22 r.23 the court must impose the prescribed costs consequences; the Applicant's requests to vary the Costs Order Nisi were refused; costs in the four proceedings where sanctioned payments were made are to be taxed on party and party up to the specified cut-off dates and on indemnity basis thereafter with certificate for counsel, interest ordered on costs at the specified aggregate rate periods, sanction sums to be paid out to respondent's solicitors…
17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2171/2020

O.22 r.23 applies mandatorily where applicant failed to obtain judgments better than sanctioned payments; it was not unjust to apply the rule here. The court varied the costs order nisi to (a) award respondent costs on indemnity basis from specified post-cut-off dates and party-and-party before those dates as set out, (b) order payment of interest on such costs, (c) permit sanctioned payments to be paid out to respondent's solicitors except HK$300 to applicant, and (d) direct that all relevant costs be taxed together before the same Master; applicant's variation applications were refused exce…
30 Sept 2025

MAURIZIO DE GASPERIS AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI TANG INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1450/2020

The court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in settlement negotiations by rigidly insisting on US$150,000 without legal or evidential basis and failing to respond to an improved Calderbank offer; accordingly the order nisi was varied to award indemnity costs from 27 August 2024 and to require plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs (with specified temporal apportionment); the defendants' costs of the summons were assessed at HK$84,729 and HK$50,000 paid into court was ordered released to defendants.
24 Jun 2025

GAIN GLOBAL CORPORATION LTD v. FONGS (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 586
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV153/2024

The Court held that the defendant did not assume a duty to verify the Borrower’s identity or to guarantee good title beyond the retainer; the tenancy agreement and stamp certificate were not title documents and the defendant’s conduct did not breach the reasonable standard of care; the plaintiff could not advance an unpleaded argument that the defendant was put on inquiry; indemnity costs were justified on the basis of the defendant’s Calderbank offer and the plaintiff did not obtain a better outcome at trial.
13 Jun 2025

SZE FUNG ENGINEERING LTD v. TREVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 532
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2023

Trevi's application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the appeal succeeded on core construction and implied term issues in favour of SF, the exception to the usual costs rule was not engaged, the pre-trial Calderbank offer was not relied upon below and could have been revived by Trevi, and the matters were not sufficiently complex to justify two counsel; consequently the costs order nisi became absolute and Trevi must pay SF's costs of the appeal.
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1380/2018

Because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages for its sole successful claim while the bulk of its claims were dismissed and the defendant27s Calderbank offer had specifically highlighted the plaintiff27s difficulty proving loss, the plaintiff could not be regarded as the successful party entitled to costs of the action; accordingly the Costs Order nisi was varied to no order as to costs of the action, but costs of the application were ordered in favour of the defendant.
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

Costs Order nisi varied: no order as to the costs of the action because, although the plaintiff obtained nominal damages only and some of its claims failed, the plaintiff had meaningful success on the key issue (existence of the Oral Agreement) which led to dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for unlawful termination; the defendant's Calderbank offers were relevant but one was late and overall did not justify awarding costs to the defendant. The costs of the Application are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant (certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed).
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ836/2018

Because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages and thus could not be regarded as a successful party on the substantive monetary claims, and because the defendant's Calderbank offers (particularly the earlier one) highlighted the plaintiff's inability to prove loss, the Costs Order nisi should be varied so there be no order as to costs of the action; however, the defendant failed on a major issue (existence of the Oral Agreement) which produced consequential results and many plaintiff allegations were not disparate or improperly made, so a costs sanction against the plaintiff for the a…