Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs liability

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2023

PROGETTO JEWELLERY CO LTD 對 LAU CHIU YING 及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKCA 140
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP172/2022

Because litigation rights vested in the Official Receiver upon the bankruptcy order and the Official Receiver declined to continue or assign the appeal due to insufficient funds and weak prospects, the applicant no longer had standing to pursue the late leave application; accordingly the Court dismissed the late application and ordered the applicant to pay costs incurred before the bankruptcy order, with enforcement subject to bankruptcy court permission.
22 Aug 2022

LAU TUNG HOI KENT v. LAU TUNG KUEN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1684/2020

The matter fell squarely within the third Re Buckton category (an adverse claim in hostile litigation by a beneficiary against an executor), so the unsuccessful party should pay the successful party's costs; however, absent a finding of dishonesty the court declined to order indemnity costs and in exercise of discretion ordered the defendant to pay 80% of the plaintiff's costs on a party-and-party basis, taxed if not agreed.
18 Aug 2021

WONG WAI HON, SIMON v. WONG WAI MAN, DOMINIC

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2332
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP301/2020

Defendant, as administrator, failed to respond to repeated requests and did not render a proper account in breach of statutory and fiduciary duties; this conduct forced the plaintiff to issue proceedings and justify an order for personal costs against the defendant, but because the defendant later made reasonable settlement proposals, the court limited personal costs liability to the period up to 15 June 2021 and made no order for costs thereafter save as provided in the Consent Order.
28 Apr 2021

NGAI WING KAN v. NGAI CHAU LAN, The administratrix of the estate of LEE YIN SUM, deceased

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1082
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2508/2016

Defendant, as administratrix, failed to render a proper account and unreasonably conditioned distributions on transfer of the Property to herself; her conduct was unreasonable and she is personally liable for the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to these proceedings, to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations if not agreed; she may not claim her own costs from the estate.
15 Aug 2019

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1077
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1479/2012

Order 22 r.18(4) applied because the sanctioned payment was made by one respondent only and the defendants were not sued in the alternative or on several liabilities; consequently the court had unfettered discretion on costs. The applicant and her former legal-aid solicitors acted unreasonably in suing the wrong party given the available evidence and the failure to investigate, so costs consequences were adjusted: the 3rd respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to the first directions hearing; the applicant was ordered to pay the Board's remaining costs for the specified p…
13 May 2016

WONG CHUN TAK v. THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG CHUN TAK v. THE REGISTRAR OF HIGH COURT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL4/2016

The court found exceptional circumstances because the leave application was hopeless, the Interested Party had a legitimate interest and provided a helpful Initial Response, and therefore costs should follow the event; the applicant was ordered to pay the Interested Party's costs of HKD 25,000.
20 Jan 2016

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN

Citation

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1155/2008

Under Order 22 rule 25 the court refused to order disclosure of the sanctioned offer at this stage because questions of interest and costs remained unresolved; the court will first determine interest, then the sanctioned offer may be disclosed, after which costs liability will be finally determined.
14 Oct 2014

姚寶昌對統計處處長及另一人

Citation

姚寶昌對統計處處長及另一人
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV87/2013

The court refused the pre-emptive costs order because the proceedings did not raise the requisite broad public interest and, on the material, were driven by the applicant's private interests; the court refused the unless order because there was no court order in existence for the defendants to comply with. Applicant's application was dismissed and he was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
21 May 2014

CHENG HOI MAN AND OTHERS v. TUNG WO ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHENG HOI MAN AND OTHERS v. TUNG WO ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC823/2013

The court approved the out‑of‑time sanctioned payment and the agreed apportionment because the 4th applicant's evidence established cohabitation and the 3rd applicant unreasonably and repeatedly challenged that status without complying with directions; accordingly costs relating to proving cohabitee status and the costs of the contested hearings are to be borne by the 3rd applicant while respondents pay remaining costs, with taxation if not agreed.
23 Jul 2012

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4699/2001

The court held that the ordinary rule that the loser of an application bears the opponent's costs applies and that the 2nd defendant's medical grounds did not constitute special circumstances to displace that rule; because the adjournments would have prejudiced the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the adjournment applications.