Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of interlocutory application

Legal area

Court

4 Nov 2024

WESOFT NATIONMARK LTD v. NATIONMARK (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3016
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA724/2019

The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay one third of the 1st to 3rd defendants' costs of opposing the plaintiff's Request for Further and Better Particulars and to pay the costs of the appeal to the 1st to 3rd defendants, directed summary assessment on paper with specified lodgement deadlines, and summarily assessed the relevant sums at HK$25,000 and HK$34,000 respectively.
30 Jun 2023

KAMLING INTERNATIONA LTD v. FIRST RESOURCES (HK) DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA281/2022

The court found there was a valid agreement to arbitrate and that the Defendant had shown a prima facie case that the arbitration agreement was subsisting and not inoperative; the parties ultimately agreed to refer the dispute to the Chengdu Arbitration Commission (CAC) and had been capable of reaching a supplemental agreement earlier, so the action was stayed to arbitration on the agreed terms; costs of the stay application up to 20 June 2023 were ordered against the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis due to the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct.
22 Jun 2022

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. SEABULK SYSTEMS INC. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 908
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2018

Because the defendants are foreign residents with no known assets in Hong Kong and the parties reached agreement on the quantum, the court ordered defendants to pay joint and several security of HK$3,600,000 into court within 14 days, stayed the appeal until security was provided, provided for dismissal on default, and awarded the plaintiff costs of the application assessed at HK$220,000; the plaintiff's estimate was not so inflated as to justify depriving it of costs.
10 Jun 2019

UNA TRADING FZE v. HONG KONG NUMISMATIC PROMOTION CO. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1048/2018

The D1 injunction was discharged because the Payment of HK$17,200,000 into court by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, together with their undertaking that the Payment stand as security for the plaintiff's claim until trial or further order, adequately protected the plaintiff's interest of HK$16,777,016.99; the plaintiff acted unreasonably in refusing the clear proposal and therefore must pay the costs of the summons to the 1st defendant.
31 Jan 2019

LAM YEE TUNG, MONA v. A HOUSE DESIGN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2768/2017

Leave was granted by consent and, having found the 2nd Respondent acted unreasonably in opposing the originating summons causing delay, the court awarded nominal additional costs of HK$3,000 to the Applicant payable by the 2nd Respondent, while ordering costs of the derivative action to be in the cause and making no order for costs of this costs application due to lack of costs statements and disproportionate costs incurred.
20 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. HO SAI KEONG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO SAI KEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA576/2014

The magistrate's adverse credibility findings were open to her on the evidence and not plainly wrong; the totality of evidence supported the conviction for possession and the appellant failed to raise a reasonable doubt; disclosure of the Source File was unnecessary for the defence case as presented; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the conviction is upheld.
23 Sept 2014

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA256/2014

Although plaintiff effectively obtained return of the cranes and could be entitled to costs up to a point, the court reserved the issue of costs because the defendant was given unconditional leave to defend and a final costs order might be inconsistent with issues to be adjudicated at trial; accordingly costs are to be determined later by written submissions and not decided in this interlocutory ruling.
13 Jun 2014

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. WAH SING PHARMACEUTICAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. WAH SING PHARMACEUTICAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP574/2012

The court exercised its discretion under Order 62 rule 5 and allowed the plaintiff to recover counsel's fees because the defendants were represented throughout, the matter was actively case managed and listed on a fast-track date, and fairness required allowing counsel's fee; costs were assessed at HKD 70,000 under Order 62 rule 9A payable by the defendants within 14 days.
16 Jul 2013

SANCTUARY SYSTEMS LTD v. ORIENT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS HONG KONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SANCTUARY SYSTEMS LTD v. ORIENT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS HONG KONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA479/2010

Leave to adduce Mainland expert evidence constituted a material change of circumstances justifying further security; only additional costs arising since Master Kwang's prior order were to be considered; fees for senior counsel were not justified; on that basis the court ordered further security of HK$430,000 to be paid into court within 21 days, failing which further proceedings be stayed, and ordered costs of the application at HK$35,000 (order nisi).
30 Jan 2013

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 confirmed that an inspection order is appropriate under Order 25 and, because the plaintiff's solicitor had affirmed the plaintiff would not personally enter and the defendants did not clearly raise that objection earlier, the summons is appropriate; however due to imperfection in the summons the costs of the summons are to be the plaintiff's costs in the cause.