Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common fund taxation

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2024

TSANG WOON MING v. TSAN HING TAT HEIDI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV18/2022

A spent Calderbank offer made in the court below is not by itself a relevant factor to justify ordering a higher basis of taxation on appeal; absent a fresh or express offer in respect of the appeal and absent conduct justifying enhanced costs, the Court will not order indemnity or common fund taxation nor certify the appeal for two counsel; accordingly the defendants' application to vary the costs order was dismissed and costs were ordered to the plaintiff.
16 Jun 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FU (OR FULL) KING BUILDING, TAI PO v. LOU TONG CHIU KEE CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP200/2019

Leave was granted to accept the sanctioned payment out of time; costs up to 21 May 2019 were ordered to the plaintiff on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed (reflecting Order 22 rule 20); costs from 22 May to 22 July 2019 and from 23 July to 23 September 2019 were ordered to the defendant on a common fund basis to be taxed if not agreed because the plaintiff sought indulgence without explanation; costs of the summons were ordered to the defendant on an indemnity basis summarily assessed at HK$80,000; no counsel certificate was granted.
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA367/2004

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA369/2004

Leave to appeal refused on the proposed grounds (insufficient reasonable prospects); tribunal held ss 8 and 8A address distinct matters so contested installations fall within s 8A; DCSs were rightly found rateable but exclusion from asset split register meant no effect on 2004/05 assessment; Black Point deferral premium was a one-off item funded from a Development Fund and not deductible as an HT expense for 2004/05; asset-split global approach to divide the divisible balance was a permissible valuation methodology and no appealable error shown; costs order nisi varied — costs relating to CLP…
9 Apr 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA366/2004

The tribunal held as a matter of law and fact that (1) ss 8 and 8A address different subject matters so items falling within s8A(3) are rateable plant and are not re-characterised as non-rateable machinery under s8(b); (2) the DCS issue was not a live ground for leave because CLP succeeded overall on that issue and paramountcy is a question of fact; (3) the Black Point deferral premium was a one-off previously funded item not to be treated as an HT expense for 2004/05 under the valuation reality assumptions; (4) the tribunal's asset-split global approach adequately accounted for interest, rew…
3 Aug 2011

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN t/a MESSRS JOHN KU & CO

Citation

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. KU LING YU JOHN t/a MESSRS JOHN KU & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1916/2007

The appeal was allowed and the Master's wasted costs orders were set aside because the matters raised were complex, factually contested and unsuitable for summary disposal under RHC O.62 r.8; the proper remedy for the plaintiff is to pursue a full action for professional negligence rather than a wasted costs summary application.
5 Nov 2010

LEUNG SZE NOK v.TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET

Citation

LEUNG SZE NOK v.TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1470/2007

The court approved the agreed settlement of $160,000 as inclusive of interest and held that Order 22(4) means a sanction offer that requires court approval takes effect only on the court's approval (the date of judgment); therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to interest from the date of writ or the sanction offer. Costs are taxed on a common fund basis and the sum is to be paid into court and invested after specified deductions.
8 Mar 2007

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR

Citation

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV62/2005

The court exercised its discretion to order taxation on a common fund basis because solicitors' contributions to the professional body were properly treated as funds held for the benefit of members analogous to a common fund, and because the Law Society's conduct (including abandoning proceedings after the court indicated the appellant had been denied the opportunity to challenge the legality of the calls) warranted that the appellant not be left out of pocket for reasonable costs incurred.
4 Aug 2006

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TO KAN CHI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2000

The Court held that the Costs Orders required common fund taxation of the respondents' own costs and authorised an interim payment of $40 million out of the Fund to meet those costs pending recovery from the Secretary for Justice; the Orders were not intended to and do not affect contractual relations between the respondents and their solicitors nor the solicitors' right to have their bills taxed, and no further clarification or setting aside was required.
15 Jun 2004

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2002

The Court held that compensation for individual unit holders is to be based on the agreed joint valuation subject to adjustment for unit‑specific special features (eg exclusive roof access, special/ recent decoration) not reflected in that valuation; heads of recoverable loss include removal expenses, reasonable incidental purchase expenses, possible separate recovery for borrowing/mortgage costs if particularised, additional repurchase cost where market rise prevented timely acquisition, and rental allowance limited by the duty to mitigate; interest and costs follow established rules includi…