Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Civil justice reform

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2025

TSEN YUN LEI v. LO KIN FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW121/2013

Although Sunni obtained some relief against Michael Kao (equitable compensation with interest), the court exercised its discretion on costs and found Sunni's unlawful means conspiracy claim against Michael Kao was unmeritorious and invited disproportionate and separable defence effort; having weighed partial successes, conduct and the increase in length/costs to Michael Kao, the just and proportionate order was that there be no order as to costs between Sunni and Michael Kao, with an order nisi that the costs of submissions on costs be borne by Sunni, taxed if not agreed, and paid to Michael…
17 Nov 2025

SUNNI INTERNATIONAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. KAO WAI HO FRANCIS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1884/2018

Although Sunni obtained partial success against Michael Kao, the unlawful means conspiracy claim against him was unmeritorious and lacked sufficient evidential basis and its pursuit materially expanded the scope and costs of his defence; in the exercise of the court's discretion a just, fair and proportionate result is no order as to costs between Sunni and Michael Kao, with costs of the submissions on costs ordered nisi against Sunni to be taxed if not agreed and paid to Michael Kao forthwith with certificate for two counsel.
11 Apr 2025

CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. PRESUMED THE HEAD OF THE WORKING PARTY FOR CJR & PD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV235/2023

Dismissal of the appeal was required because the applicant failed to identify any public law error in the CJR or PD SL1.2, sought effectively a collateral attack on prior judicial determinations (an abuse of process), and the discovery issue turned on an unchallenged affirmation that the 999 recordings no longer existed, leaving no arguable public law case and rendering the application out of time.
14 Oct 2024

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2632/2018

The Master’s order was upheld because the applications came after inordinate and unexplained delay close to a fixed 14-day trial, the proposed supplemental witness statement comprised predominantly new and inadmissible evidence (including opinion/speculation), and admitting the materials would cause real, substantial and irremediable prejudice to the respondents inconsistent with the objectives of the CJR; costs could not adequately cure that prejudice.
16 Apr 2024

PANG KAM CHUEN, the sole executor of the estate of PANG YEUK CHI, deceased v. PANG KAM BOR

Citation

[2024] HKDC 598
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ348/2021

The court refused to vary an order for immediate payment of costs where the applicant's renewed appeal lacked merit and no adequate evidential basis was shown to justify deferral; immediate payment was ordered to prevent prejudice to the successful party and to discipline unmeritorious interlocutory applications.
23 Sept 2022

RICH PROFIT CREATION LTD v. KO CHUNG LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2939
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1207/2017

The summons was dismissed because it was brought after the prescribed 14-day period, no application for relief from sanctions or extension of time under Order 2 rule 5 was made, no evidence or explanation for the delay was provided, and on the authorities and rules the court would not exercise any discretion to vary the absolute costs order.
31 Aug 2022

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2482/2014

Plaintiff failed to show "good reasons" under O.62 rr.17A/17B to set aside the taxing master's decision or the allocatur because its non-participation resulted from neglect/recklessness in receiving served documents; the master did not err in allowing the bill as drawn; extension of time and setting aside were refused; appeal dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
30 Aug 2021

PERPETUAL WEALTH (HONG KONG) LTD v. BE SOLUTIONS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1905/2018

The court refused to give any directions on expert evidence because the parties failed to properly identify the real issues in dispute, to frame appropriate questions for experts, and to identify suitably qualified candidates; the court held that without those prerequisites it would not grant leave for expert evidence and emphasised the preference for single joint experts for quantum while allowing that separate experts on defects might be justified if properly formulated applications are made.
9 Mar 2021

CHOW KIN HANG ALI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL HYGIENE DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2021] HKDC 360
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1413/2019

The summons for specific discovery was dismissed: communications between the respondent and the Department of Justice are protected by legal professional privilege and cannot be ordered produced; the other requested documents were refused because the application was vague, imprecise and oppressive (voluminous and unspecified) and the documents were not relevant or necessary for disposing fairly of the employees' compensation claim under the without-fault statutory scheme.
1 Feb 2021

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2017

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal because the defendants' prolonged inactivity after obtaining leave to appeal constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay and an abuse of process (warehousing), their derivative action explanation did not justify delay beyond mid‑2018, and the delay caused prejudice to the plaintiff and the administration of justice; accordingly the appeal was struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff.