Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Costs of review

  • 22 Feb 2017

    HKSAR v. KIRKHAM, MARK EDWARD

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KIRKHAM, MARK EDWARD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA658/2015

    The court allowed the application for costs of the prosecution review because the Magistrate plainly erred in rejecting the appellant's self-defence evidence and so the review and resulting conviction should not have stood; conversely the court refused costs of the trial for both charges because the appellant failed to seek costs of Charge 1 immediately after acquittal and, on the facts, the spitting (Charge 1) constituted suspicious conduct that set in motion the events leading to Charge 2 so the court declined to exercise its discretion to award trial costs for Charge 2.

  • 28 Jul 2003

    MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD

    Citation
    MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT20/2002

    The Master allowed the review in full: the discretion under Order 62 permits departure from suggested scales where a fee-earner demonstrates specialist skills, substantial responsibility and cost-effectiveness; Mr Barrett's pivotal role, specialist valuation expertise and the limited additional cost to the lay client justified allowance of the billed rate of $2,600 per hour; accordingly the taxed rate was restored and the Receiving Party awarded the costs of the review fixed at $52,000.

  • 2 Jun 2000

    LAM CHI SHEUNG v. KIN WAH ENGINEERING CO. ANOTHER

    Citation
    LAM CHI SHEUNG v. KIN WAH ENGINEERING CO. ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI596/1997

    The offer of 4 March 1999 was a proper Calderbank offer; the taxed costs (with interest) were below the global offer so the offer succeeded overall but failed in respect of disbursements; having regard to the distinct categories of costs and the legal aid context the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion was to vary the master's orders so that each party bears its own costs of the taxation and review, with the plaintiff entitled to recover items 399 and half of items 419 and half the taxing fee.

  • 17 Oct 1973

    COUTINHO, CARO & CO v. SHIU WING CO LTD

    Citation
    COUTINHO, CARO & CO v. SHIU WING CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2042/1970

    The Taxing Master must moderate party-and-party recoveries under Order 62 by allowing only reasonable and necessary counsel fees and disbursements; accordingly items 78 and 79 were disallowed as unnecessary/duplicative, counsel brief and refresher allowances were limited as taxed, only one return flight and reasonable days and subsistence were allowed for foreign experts with a capped sum for the expert report, the agent's expenses were wholly disallowed as not reasonably incurred, duplicated item 342 disallowed, and the costs of the Review ordered to the Defendant.