Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs against non‑parties

Legal area

Court

27 Dec 2024

BILLION WELL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD v. LONG FAITH ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA805/2021

The summonses were dismissed because the petitioner unreasonably delayed and failed to warn the alleged funders/directing parties, produced no evidence that the directors were the real parties or personally benefited from continuing the litigation, failed to establish serious impropriety causatively linked to unnecessary costs, and could not recover costs for conduct after the automatic stay; exercise of discretion under s.52A in these circumstances was unjustified.
2 Aug 2022

RE SNG ALLAN, also known as SNG HOCK SENG

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1132
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV465/2018

There was no uncontroverted evidence that Ms Wong personally funded the debtor’s appeal; the only payment identified was a company cheque drawn on GINL’s account signed by her in her capacity as a director with no beneficial interest; accordingly it was not just to hold her liable for the petitioner’s costs and the application for costs against her was dismissed, leaving the debtor liable as previously ordered; costs of the application are to be paid by the debtor on a costs nisi basis to be assessed on a gross sum basis.
26 Feb 2016

LEUNG CHUNG CHING EDWIN AND ANOTHER v. THE ESTATE OF LEUNG ON MEI AMY, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG CHUNG CHING EDWIN AND ANOTHER v. THE ESTATE OF LEUNG ON MEI AMY, DECEASED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2033/2012

The court held that the estate should not bear the plaintiffs' costs because the litigation was inevitable given the plaintiffs' conduct, but Henry personally conducted and defended the action beyond what was necessary and unreasonably protracted the proceedings; accordingly Henry was joined for costs and ordered to pay 20% of the plaintiffs' costs (to be taxed if not agreed), while no costs were ordered against the estate and each party bears their own costs of the summonses.
26 May 2008

XINXING COUNTY YUEXINGHUA STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS CO LTD v. UNITED PACIFIC TRADING LTD

Citation

XINXING COUNTY YUEXINGHUA STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS CO LTD v. UNITED PACIFIC TRADING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA505/2006

The PLs were not parties to the appeal and therefore s.52A(2) precludes an award of costs against them; Orders 62 r.8 and r.6(2) are inapplicable because those rules apply to parties; accordingly the application to make the PLs personally liable for the appeal costs (and to deprive them of costs under r.6(2)) is dismissed. The court nonetheless made specific inter partes costs orders between plaintiff and defendant and prohibited PLs from recovering payment or reimbursement from the defendant for costs incurred in the conduct of this application.
17 Oct 2006

BEST CONSULTANTS LTD v. AURASOUND SPEAKERS LTD

Citation

BEST CONSULTANTS LTD v. AURASOUND SPEAKERS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2006

Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance bars the court from awarding costs against a person who was not a party to the relevant proceedings; David Liu was a non‑party (not a contributory or director at the hearing) and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to order costs against him and correctly ordered that costs be paid out of the Company's assets; the joinder application was properly refused as being raised first in this Court without special circumstances.
16 Aug 2006

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2004

The Court directed that questions of jurisdiction to award costs against non‑parties and whether the Father's costs should be paid from the estate must be resolved before any discovery into funders is pursued; the summons before the Probate Judge is not properly before this Court; the Father was ordered to file an affirmation within 14 days providing particulars of costs and payment/retainer arrangements; discovery motions must be separately brought and may be remitted to the Court of First Instance if appropriate.
26 Apr 2006

WORLD FUEL SERVICES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “M.V. LIBERTY CONTAINER” AND ANOTHER

Citation

WORLD FUEL SERVICES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “M.V. LIBERTY CONTAINER” AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV327/2005

Appeal allowed and the costs order against Florens set aside because the judge misapplied the Dymocks principle without regard to Hong Kong's Companies Ordinance s.265(5B); there was insufficient evidence that Florens substantially funded, controlled or was the principal beneficiary of the litigation to justify a costs order against it, and creditor funding in liquidation may be incentivised and protected under s.265(5B), so the discretion was wrongly exercised on the facts below.
5 Oct 2005

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HSIN YIEH ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HSIN YIEH ARCHITECTS & ASSOCIATES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2005

Leave under Order 11 r.1(1)(c) does not require the plaintiff to plead a separate cause of action against the foreign person; where a foreign person is a necessary or proper party ancillary to a valid domestic cause of action and there is a serious question to be tried, the court may grant leave to serve out and join that person so that, under Hong Kong law (noting s.52A), a costs order may be made against a party; accordingly the judge's order granting leave to join and serve AXA was proper and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Dec 1996

AIE CO LTD. v. KAY KAM YU

Citation

AIE CO LTD. v. KAY KAM YU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV45/1995

The court concluded there was no jurisdiction in these proceedings to order costs against Messrs J. Fang & Co. because they were not parties and the alleged misconduct did not occur in the course of the litigation in which the costs were incurred; Order 62's summary wasted-costs jurisdiction applies to solicitors acting in the proceedings, not to former solicitors in respect of conveyancing conduct, and s.52A(2) precludes making costs awards against non-parties in the absence of primary legislation to the contrary.