Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consent orders

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

AMMAR ABDALMOEEN HUSSEIN IBRAHIM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2026] HKDC 664
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4008/2023

Leave to appeal was granted because the parties had a Specific Agreement that costs were to be taxed, the court would have given weight to that agreement and would not have changed it absent cogent reasons; the court was not informed and did not afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before altering the costs provision, thereby giving the proposed appeal a reasonable prospect of success.
14 Apr 2026

SERES PROPERTIES B.V. v. LEE HOCK PUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2022

The Consent Order did not exclusively prevent D1 from seeking to set aside the Default Judgment by other routes; the Default Judgment was irregular and therefore properly set aside ex debito justitiae; there was no abuse of process or such delay as to justify a different result; variation to order immediate summary assessment was refused because procedural preconditions were not met; both the Leave Summons and Variation Summons were dismissed and Plaintiff ordered to pay HK$42,000 to the 1st Defendant as summarily assessed costs of the summonses.
26 Sept 2025

IQBAL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 861
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP124/2024

The Court exercised its discretion to allow the 6th applicant's renewed application for extension of time and treated the hearing as the hearing of the appeal because the parties had reached an agreed and appropriate consent disposal; accordingly the Court set aside the Deputy High Court Judge's order refusing leave, allowed the appeal, granted leave to apply for judicial review, quashed the Board's decision dated 16 November 2018 and remitted the matter to the Board (differently constituted) for fresh determination, with no order as to costs save that the applicant's own costs be taxed under…
31 Dec 2024

LEE CHOI HO v. MESSRS. COLLIN NG & CO., SOLICITORS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP777/2021

The court held that the Taxing Master has jurisdiction to determine the terms and extent of the retainer and to take evidence under O62 r14; parties must present disputes to the taxing master first and, if subsequent developments render the taxation order untenable, the parties must apply to a judge to set aside and re-open the order rather than expecting the taxing master to refer matters back to the judge unilaterally; consent orders disposing substantive relief remain binding.
7 Nov 2024

LI YULONG v. LIU JING

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA896/2019

The Plaintiff was in breach of the unless order in respect of specific requests (Request §§1 and 3(1)(b) and (c)) but the breach did not justify dismissal of the entire action as disproportionate; relief from sanction was appropriate, the Master's dismissal of the summons was correct and the order striking out ASOC §5 was set aside and ASOC §5 reinstated while ASOC §3 remains struck out; Plaintiff must provide complete answers to Request §§3(1)(b) and (c) within 7 days.
26 Sept 2024

香港平民屋宇有限公司對關翠華

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1588
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5514/2023

The court restored the legal proceedings in DCCJ 5505 and refused to prolong suspension for a second legal aid application where delay was unexplained and previous application had been refused and dismissed on appeal; the court ruled that fresh evidence filed on appeal was admissible only for events occurring after 22 August 2024 and otherwise excluded under Order 58(1)(4) and Ladd v Marshall; the court held that settlement conference/FDR judges have limited powers and, where one party withdraws consent to continue the FDR, remaining contested case management matters must be transferred to an…
11 Jul 2024

FREMERY ENRICH HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN MICHAEL CYRUS (formerly known as CHAN YUN YIN) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2011
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA347/2024

The judge exercised discretion considering that the defendant's concession was without admission and saved time, there was no significant or prejudicial delay, most interlocutory costs had already been dealt with by earlier orders, and the remaining costs were minimal; the March 'costs in the cause' order was correctly interpreted as referring to the cause of the action, therefore costs of the summons are to be in the cause of the action, but the costs of today's hearing are awarded to the 1st defendant, summarily assessed at HK$115,000 payable by the plaintiffs by 25 July 2024.
28 Dec 2023

譚對歐陽及另二人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1355
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP276/2022

The applicant's renewed contentions were repetitions of issues already determined and provided no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; therefore the application to vary the costs order is dismissed and the applicant must pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
12 Dec 2023

LAM KAM HEI v. NG CHING HOI

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1712
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI717/2022

The court upheld the Taxation Decision largely, rejecting an across-the-board reduction to hourly rates and applying item-by-item scrutiny: maintaining the hourly rates claimed for the principal solicitors for taxation except that for the purposes of this review the hourly rate for CW was allowed at HKD 3,000; time allowances were reduced where supervision/ delegation made tasks properly chargeable at lower seniority; most objections were dismissed and the Defendant was ordered to pay costs of the review assessed at HKD 8,007.
20 Oct 2023

LCFM v. LSF

Citation

[2023] HKFC 218
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2346/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were essentially factual challenges without a legal misdirection, s15 MPPO was not argued at trial and cannot be raised at leave stage, there was no reasonable prospect of success and no other interests of justice to justify granting leave; costs were ordered against the applicant.