Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common fund costs

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

CHEUNG CHIM JIMMY v. TAM HIU FAI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 248
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2537/2022

Although the minor's individual claim objectively fell within the Small Claims jurisdiction, commencement of three related actions in the District Court with the same solicitors justified awarding District Court scale costs to the minor on a common fund basis; however, the court exercised its discretion to disallow or reduce costs that were unnecessary, disproportionate or duplicated (notably counsel fees and certain expert/disbursement items) and to make no order for costs of the security-for-costs summons and the settlement summons; overall assessed and awarded substantially reduced sums fo…
13 Feb 2026

X (a minor, suing by her father and next friend, CHEUNG CHIM JIMMY) v. TAM HIU FAI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 248
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2536/2022

Given the objective evidence of a minor collision, medical evidence showing nil or minimal injury, and substantial unjustified duplication of litigation across three separate actions, the court exercised its discretion to disallow significant parts of plaintiffs' claimed costs (including counsel fees and certain disbursements), awarded reduced common-fund District Court scale costs to the minor and fixed assessed costs for the parents, made no order for costs of the security-for-costs and settlement summonses, and ordered release of security paid into court.
27 Jan 2026

CHRISTINE RUTH ONG CHAI HOON AND OTHERS v. LAM KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 638
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1793/2012

The court found special circumstances on the evidence—namely contradictions between pleaded case and key allegations, incoherence in a central alleged notification, failure to properly plead or prove the case against one defendant and a collective retrospective construction of evidence by the plaintiffs—such that indemnity costs are appropriate; accordingly the plaintiffs' summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the costs order nisi was made absolute for KC Lam and eBiz and Tommy Lai, with ancillary directions for taxation of summons costs on a party and party basis if not agre…
28 Aug 2025

PEKING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LTD v. PEKING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1470/2022

Material non-disclosure by the plaintiff in the ex parte application was inexcusable and egregious; although the plaintiff's case was weak and amendments and late evidence were undesirable, the conduct did not justify indemnity costs; on balance the proper sanction was to vary the costs order nisi and make it absolute awarding costs to the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants on a common fund basis (appeal costs taxed on common fund basis with certificate for two counsel), and costs of the present application to be on a common fund basis (certificate for one counsel).
23 Jul 2024

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2016

The court held the plaintiffs did not meet the high threshold required to show a high probability of success at trial sufficient to defeat security for costs; the handwriting reports and CCTV recordings did not incontrovertibly undermine prior judgments and could be contradicted or explained; accordingly both security for costs applications were allowed and security was assessed at HK$750,000 for each application, with costs ordered against the plaintiffs on a common fund basis and directions given for summary assessment and future conduct of the actions.
9 Apr 2021

KWOK CHUN SING v. KWOK SIU MAN VIOLA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 860
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2492/2017

The Court found Diana (as Administratrix) entitled to costs of the Money Claim and that her early sanctioned offer (11 March 2014) was genuine and therefore attracted Order 22 consequences; Yee was ordered to pay Diana's costs of the Money Claim on indemnity basis from 9 April 2014 to 4 January 2015 and 50% of costs from 5 January 2015 onward; Sing was liable for 50% of Diana's costs from 5 January 2015 but only on party-and-party basis because Diana's later sanctioned offer linking withdrawal of property claim to settlement was tactical and not a genuine offer under Order 22; D&V's late sanc…
13 Jan 2020

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. POON CHO-MING, JOHN

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 2
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2019

The Court refused to vary the order nisi to award indemnity or common fund costs because the Taxpayer did not demonstrate the special or unusual features or the unreasonable or improper conduct by the Commissioner necessary to displace the usual party-and-party basis; the order nisi became absolute and each side bears its own costs of the submissions on costs.
2 Sept 2019

KAN WAN CHUNG v. LEUNG MAN KON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1141
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2388/2016

The Offer was not a valid sanctioned offer under Order 22 because its costs term (costs up to the date of the Offer) did not align with Order 22 r21(1) and therefore prevented the statutory costs consequences from arising; however, because the defendants unreasonably refused to mediate, costs incurred after 18 November 2016 are to be taxed on a common fund basis; indemnity costs and enhanced interest from 12/13 September 2017 were not awarded.
19 Jul 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

The court dismissed the 2nd Defendant's summons seeking variation to obtain indemnity (or common fund) costs because the Plaintiffs' conduct did not exhibit special or unusual features warranting indemnity costs; the Plaintiffs committed a procedural irregularity in obtaining the ex parte injunction but there was no deliberate withholding of material nor were the Continuation Summonses entirely devoid of merit, and warning correspondence and delay alone did not justify indemnity costs. Costs consequences were apportioned: reserved costs of the Plaintiffs' Continuation Summonses were ordered t…
12 Jul 2019

LEE CHI CHIU BY LEE SHUK FAN, HIS NEXT FRIEND v. WU TAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 927
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1098/2016

Court exercised its discretion to award the plaintiff costs of the action on a common fund basis on District Court scale to be taxed if not agreed, based on the plaintiff's status as a mentally incapacitated person requiring protection, the long standing practice and applicable rules and guidance; the court accepted the plaintiff solicitors' Primary Undertaking; alternatively, if a cut-off were required the court identified 13 February 2017 as the appropriate cut-off (date of the second accident causing incapacity).