Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs order

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

陳壽祥對 CHI WO CONTRACTORS LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 971
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP245/2024

The fresh evidence applications were refused because most documents were not genuinely new or lacked independent value and did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall; the new materials could not overturn the trial judge's credibility and factual findings which were supported by evidence; consequently there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused; applications for stay and admission of fresh evidence denied and costs awarded to respondents.
11 May 2026

張惠蘭對中國海外物業服務有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCA 913
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP97/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no real prospect of success: the costs order on restoration was not unreasonable or legally wrong; the applicant was warned of the mandatory attendance at the case management conference, her adjournment request was not granted, and therefore the costs consequence was properly imposed; accordingly there is no basis to overturn the decision or grant leave.
30 Mar 2026

TANG SIU MING v. YANG XUEMEI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 477
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4087/2022

The judge preferred the defendant's evidence on credibility and found the pattern, frequency and informal manner of repeated advancements, together with absence of written proof or clear contemporaneous terms, established on the balance of probabilities that the payments were voluntary gifts and not loans; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and costs ordered against him.
17 Mar 2026

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. HONOUR ELITE CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP70/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi because, on the facts and correspondence, the plaintiff should have anticipated substantial factual disputes (notably the right to call loans and the prevention principle/breach of confidentiality) that made the originating summons procedure inappropriate; accordingly DBS Bank was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the Conversion Summonses (including the hearing) and specified costs for the Costs Summons and Time Summons.
4 Mar 2026

陳嘉琪對嘉頓有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKDC 343
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC864/2019

Relief from the penalty clause is refused because the applicant failed to provide any adequate explanation for non‑compliance with the unless order, her conduct indicates deliberate or culpable refusal to attend the medical examination and to disclose requested medical records, the respondent suffered real prejudice and wasted costs and time, and case management and fairness to the respondent require enforcement of the unless order and the costs order.
27 Feb 2026

SEAN LEONARD v. HONG KONG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 279
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1180/2021

None of the plaintiff's grounds met the statutory test for leave to appeal (no reasonable prospect of success) and none established actual or apparent bias; the judge and Master lawfully exercised their discretion and the Costs Order stands; both applications dismissed with costs to defendants.
16 Feb 2026

CHU SYMON HIN WING, CHU YUM KO DANIEL (朱蔭高) and CHU YUM HONG (朱蔭康) as managers of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN) (朱南園) suing on behalf of all members of CHU NAM YUN (OR YUEN) (朱南園) 對羅志民及另四人

Citation

[2026] HKCA 222
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP120/2025

The application to vary the interim costs order was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any unreasonableness in the order or assessed amount, the asserted financial and health difficulties did not justify depriving the successful party of costs incurred due to the applicant's own application, and the court would not consider evidence that had not been filed; accordingly the interim costs order was made absolute.
16 Feb 2026

WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1006
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2021

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the order made absolute because the Estate succeeded in the vast bulk of its claims, the unsuccessful claims did not lead to any increase in costs, and the defendants' conduct and materially changing defences justified no reduction in the costs order.
12 Feb 2026

MAK NGUN TAI AND OTHERS v. FUNG MING IP AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP37/2015

The plaintiffs are entitled to be first indemnified by the estate for costs incurred in successfully opposing probate but the losing defendants must ultimately bear those costs; there is no double recovery because the plaintiffs undertook to return any amounts recovered from the defendants to the estate, and a certificate for two counsel was warranted by the complexity and length of the proceedings.
12 Feb 2026

MAK PO NGAN 對 CHEUNG YUNG HO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 112
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6282/2024

The application to vary the interim costs order was dismissed because the earlier judgment established the plaintiff's claims had no real prospect and were frivolous or vexatious; the plaintiff provided no evidence of defendant misconduct or unreasonable conduct warranting departure from the ordinary costs rule; unrelated allegations and criminal concerns are irrelevant to the civil court's discretion on costs; accordingly the interim costs order was made absolute and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application assessed at HK$10,000.