Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of trial

Legal area

Court

11 Dec 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUNG MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1115
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/2023

Although both applicants had brought some suspicion upon themselves at trial, the Court found that the charge under section 37DA(1) was inappropriate on the facts and allowed the appeals; the Court exercised its discretion to award each applicant 50% of the costs of the trial and 50% of the costs of the appeal (including hearings incidental thereto), ordered costs to be taxed if not agreed, and refused the 2nd applicant's application for a certificate for two counsel.
23 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. KHAW KIM SUN (許金山)

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 10
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2023

The Court awarded costs only for the leave application (FAMC 24/2022) and the substantive appeal to this Court (FACC 8/2023) but declined costs for the original trial and the intermediate appeal because the appellant's investigative conduct justified prosecution and because the majority of appellate grounds were unarguable and unreasonably advanced; no order was made on costs of submissions given partial success.
15 Feb 2022

HKSAR v. ADIL MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA396/2020

There was no evidence as to the route taken or manner of driving when the appellant left the scene, so the appellant had not brought suspicion upon himself nor misled the prosecution; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to award the appellant the costs of the trial.
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.
6 Jan 2012

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2010

The Court awarded the named appellants costs of and incidental to the proceedings in all courts below and in the Court of Final Appeal, including costs of written submissions on costs; granted the certificates for counsel each appellant sought; directed that all costs be taxed by the Registrar on the basis indicated in the Egan costs judgment (i.e. reasonably sufficient to compensate expenses properly incurred); and awarded Rahman specified legal aid contribution amounts for the Court of Appeal and this Court.
23 Oct 2009

HKSAR v. KANJANAPAS, CHONG KWONG DEREK AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. KANJANAPAS, CHONG KWONG DEREK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC248/2006

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to recover costs of the District Court trial insofar as they relate to Charges 4 and 5 because the convictions were set aside for failure to prove actus reus and mens rea; costs previously refused in respect of acquitted conspiracy charges in the District Court remain unchallengeable on appeal under the CCCO absent judicial review; the prosecutor's application under s32(2) HKCFAO was not 'without merit' and therefore no costs were ordered under s9B CCCO in respect of that application.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LEUNG CHUNG MAN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. KHAW KIM SUN (許金山)

HKSAR v. ADIL MUHAMMAD

HKSAR v. KIRKHAM, MARK EDWARD

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN

HKSAR v. KANJANAPAS, CHONG KWONG DEREK AND OTHERS