Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Costs

  • 21 May 2026

    HKSAR v. JAHANGIR ADIL AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 782
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC421/2025

    Although an acquitted defendant is normally entitled to costs, the court exercised its discretion to refuse costs because D1's behaviour during the investigation gave rise to suspicion and misled the prosecution into believing the case against him was stronger; moreover the prosecution had admissible s79C evidence and a positive identification parade forming a legitimate basis for proceeding, so positive reasons existed to deny costs.

  • 21 May 2026

    譚 對 吳

    Citation
    [2026] HKCA 993
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP156/2025

    The court refused leave to appeal because the father's grounds failed to show any obvious error of fact or principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion: the 12‑month supervision order was a lawful, reasonable measure within the judge's assessment of the parties' communication and the child's welfare; social welfare reports are advisory; the custody award to the mother did not evidence a reversible error; and the application therefore lacked a reasonable prospect of success. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

  • 18 May 2026

    YVES CHARLES EDGAR BOUVIER v. PASCAL MARIE MICHAEL DE SARTHE AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 2721
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1822/2025

    Peretti was joined as a necessary party because his interest is directly related to the ownership dispute and joinder is necessary to avoid multiplicity and to determine ownership of the Subject Artworks; interpleader relief was inappropriate given defendants were not neutral and asserted ownership interests over some items; plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried as to ownership of Items 7 and 11 and disclosure was insufficient to enforce the preservation undertaking so further disclosure was ordered; delivery up to a reputable independent custodian and payment of proceeds into co…

  • 15 May 2026

    BENRONA HOLDINGS LTD及另一人 對 張志超

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 814
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2520/2023

    Defendant became a trespasser from 16 March 2023 for remaining in the premises after expiry of the tenancy; mesne profits are payable at the contractual rent of HK$18,500 per month from 16 March 2023; plaintiffs did not accept a binding extension to 15 December 2023 and any purported partial acceptance in the 12/5/2023 correspondence does not create a binding agreement; deposit refundable only upon delivery of vacant possession and full payment, which conditions are unmet; defendant's counterclaim dismissed; costs to plaintiffs on party-and-party basis.

  • 15 May 2026

    CHOW LUEN FAT v. WONG YAT KONG

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 735
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6688/2020

    On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's account that the loan was made by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and that Tak Lee advanced the funds at the plaintiff's direction to reduce a director's loan; the defendant's signature on the bilingual Loan Confirmation corroborated the defendant's personal liability for the outstanding $500,000; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $500,000 with interest and costs as ordered.

  • 14 May 2026

    陳华玲 對 黃漢邦

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 697
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI3825/2022

    Court fixed PSLA at HKD 400,000 because injuries (right tibial plateau fracture, tibial shaft spiral fracture and fibular head fracture requiring ORIF and prolonged inpatient treatment and physiotherapy) were serious but achieved satisfactory healing and functional recovery per joint orthopaedic expert; pre-trial income loss rejected for lack of supporting documentary evidence and claimant's likely retirement/limited labour-market prospects; family care claim rejected for lack of evidence of market value and hours; specific special damages proven and quantified to HKD 359,267 (excluding QEH i…

  • 14 May 2026

    關洪川 對 優星投資有限公司及另一人

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 707
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4067/2022

    The court found the written leases constituted newly negotiated agreements that did not include any term or reliable evidence that defendants assumed the prior tenant's obligations or promised to reinstate the unit; absent clear contractual provision or credible contemporaneous evidence, defendants were not liable for restoration, rent loss, inspection fees or hotel costs; only proven unpaid government rent of HK$1,212 could be recovered and set off against the deposit; costs awarded against plaintiff at 90% due to partial and late amendments and conduct.

  • 14 May 2026

    VAMPIO LTD v. LAI YUK LEONG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 836
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4644/2018

    The court declares that the succession under Memorials 72787 and 72788 was on a per capita basis so that the parties' respective shares are those set out in Ratio (1); physical partition is impracticable; however the Plaintiff failed to establish that it had no other remedy to rid itself of co-ownership and accordingly the court refuses to make an order for sale under the Partition Ordinance; costs ordered nisi as specified.

  • 12 May 2026

    KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 781
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5985/2024

    Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Order of 25 October 2024 was a Mareva injunction only, the District Judge correctly applied the Mareva/risk of dissipation test on continuation, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success or that the decision was plainly wrong. An interim continuation of the injunction was granted pending determination of any appeal to the Court of Appeal.

  • 12 May 2026

    GREAT CITY ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG MAY KUEN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 637
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3406/2023

    The 2nd Defendant's proposed grounds of appeal are without reasonable prospect of success because the trial judge correctly found on contemporaneous documents, expert and factual evidence that the plaintiffs had factual possession (enclosure sufficed) and the requisite intention to possess; the proposed challenges merely re‑argue or dispute findings of fact which are not plainly wrong, therefore leave to appeal is refused.