15 May 2026
The defendant's arguable dispute over beneficial ownership did not justify a stay or departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event in respect of a successful statutory disclosure application under ss.435 and 620; given the circumstances the judge properly certified the attendance of two counsel.
29 Apr 2026
Refusal to grant a certificate for two counsel because the evidence and legal issues were not sufficiently complex despite seriousness of allegations; the sanctioned offer of HK$1,000 was not shown to be non-genuine on the facts and therefore costs incurred after its expiry on 26 June 2025 are to be taxed on an indemnity basis under Order 22 rule 23; the application for enhanced interest was abandoned and in any event lacked evidentiary basis.
26 Mar 2026
The court exercised its discretion under s5 Cap 492 to refuse the defendant's application for costs because, despite acquittal, the defendant's bank account transactions gave rise to strong suspicion and her exercise of the right to remain silent when arrested deprived authorities of the opportunity to allay that suspicion; those matters justified depriving her of costs. A certificate for two counsel was not warranted given the case's attributes.
26 Feb 2026
Certificates for two counsel were granted because the complications and consequences justified two counsel; Mr Lam’s application to reduce solicitor-and-own-client costs failed because the guarantee provided for such costs and his conduct (including lack of credibility) warranted the award; Orient Profit’s attempt to cap its costs liability to mortgage proceeds failed because contractual terms cannot fetter the court’s discretion and would create moral hazard; costs are to follow the event and be taxed and assessed by the master in the usual way, with no summary assessment of the variation ap…
26 Feb 2026
The court upheld the solicitor-and-own-client costs order against Mr Lam on the basis of the guarantee's contractual provision and the court's adverse findings about his credibility; granted certificates for two counsel in both actions because of complexity and consequences; rejected Orient Profit's argument to cap its costs liability to mortgage proceeds because the court's discretion cannot be fettered by the Second Mortgage and because Orient Profit's defence lacked merit; and held that costs (including those of the variation applications) are to be taxed and assessed by the master rather…
12 Feb 2026
The plaintiffs are entitled to be first indemnified by the estate for costs incurred in successfully opposing probate but the losing defendants must ultimately bear those costs; there is no double recovery because the plaintiffs undertook to return any amounts recovered from the defendants to the estate, and a certificate for two counsel was warranted by the complexity and length of the proceedings.
26 Jan 2026
The summons was dismissed because the defendants provided no adequate explanation for issuing substantial new discovery two days before trial, the late production caused real prejudice and risked adjournment, the proposed documents' provenance and relevance were questionable, the conduct amounted to an abuse of process, and post-CJR procedural expectations require strict adherence; accordingly leave was refused and indemnity costs with a certificate for two counsel were awarded to the plaintiff.
22 Jan 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal merely re-ran meritless, fact-sensitive arguments without a reasonable prospect of success; no demonstrable actual or apparent bias was established; indemnity costs were not justified by the Defendant's conduct though a certificate for two counsel was appropriate; the claimed overall costs were excessive and the matter is referred to taxation for assessment.
11 Dec 2025
Although both applicants had brought some suspicion upon themselves at trial, the Court found that the charge under section 37DA(1) was inappropriate on the facts and allowed the appeals; the Court exercised its discretion to award each applicant 50% of the costs of the trial and 50% of the costs of the appeal (including hearings incidental thereto), ordered costs to be taxed if not agreed, and refused the 2nd applicant's application for a certificate for two counsel.
17 Nov 2025
Costs were awarded because the court found the defendant was acquitted and had not brought suspicion upon himself: his VRIs were consistent with his trial evidence and he later obtained additional information that explained transactions; the existence of a prima facie case or a rejected no-case submission does not of itself bar costs; engagement of senior and junior counsel was reasonable given the seriousness of the charges, voluminous documentary material and length of trial, therefore certificate for two counsel is granted and costs are to be taxed if not agreed.