Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs order variation

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2025

CHAN YAT MAN v. TUNG PO (H.K.) TECHNOLOGY ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2904/2017

Each of the defendant's counterclaims for the 12 payments constituted separate heads of claim; the defendant succeeded only in respect of Payments #3 to #5 while the plaintiff succeeded as to the remainder, so costs of the succeeded heads broadly cancel each other and the Costs Order Nisi should be varied accordingly. The court exercised its discretion to substitute the Costs Order Nisi with the Substitution Costs Order and to order that the defendant bear the costs of the Variation Summons, taxed with certificate for counsel and set off against costs otherwise payable by the plaintiff.
20 Aug 2024

LO KWOK KWEI DAVID v. YEUNG KAI CHEUNG PATRICK

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA638/2017

The court held that although the Costs Order as drafted was intended to be absolute, the existence of an undisclosed sanctioned payment constituted a strong reason to revisit the costs order pre-sealing and under RHC O.22 rr.23-24; the plaintiff failed to show it would be unjust to make enhanced and indemnity costs given the plaintiff's unreliability and lack of evidence of prejudice; accordingly the Costs Order was varied to award two-counsel certification, indemnity costs from 25 October 2017, enhanced pre-judgment interest at a modified rate, release of the sanctioned payment, and costs of…
7 Jun 2024

LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN, Administrator of estate of LAU WAI CHAU, deceased v. MA WAH YAN and WONG CHI LEUNG, co-administrators of the estate of LAU LEUNG CHAU, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1521
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3924/1995

The Variation Application was dismissed: dual representation was justified given procedural history and distinct actions; the Administrator's successes on quantum justified recovery of costs; issue‑based reductions were not warranted; Order 62 r.28(5) limits the court's power to order trustee basis where costs are not to be paid out of a fund or the receiving party is not a trustee, therefore 1st and 2nd fongs' costs are to be summarily assessed on common fund basis and the Order Nisi is made absolute as varied; the 5 fongs must bear the costs of the Variation Application and related directio…
27 Oct 2022

MEI KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING v. PRIZEMART LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1216
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2927/2019

The court applied the principle that costs should follow the event and rejected the plaintiff's late and untenable objections (including to the expert's independence); accordingly the Costs Order Nisi was varied so that the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the transfer application and of the variation application forthwith, both to be summarily assessed, and the court fixed summary assessment amounts of HK$82,000 and HK$30,000 respectively.
18 Oct 2022

KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2019

The court found H's manner of disclosure and litigation conduct to be highly unreasonable and, on that basis, varied the Costs Order Nisi so that the costs ordered to be paid by H to W and the Official Solicitor (insofar as ordered against H) are on an indemnity basis; however W was ordered to pay H's costs of and incidental to the FDR from 12 October 2020 (party and party, certificate for one counsel) because W unreasonably delayed instructing experts and failed to comply with FDR directions; OS's costs of and incidental to the FDR are to be paid and indemnified by W; other specified costs (…
9 Nov 2021

XU YING v. XU WEIHONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1670
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2020

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the plaintiff was the overall winner and his failure on the malicious falsehood point was not sufficiently separate and substantial to justify any significant reduction, including a 50% reduction, of the costs awarded to him.
22 Oct 2021

KHAN MURAD v. CHAN YUK MING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1310
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI4215/2019

Because the defendant paid a sanctioned sum into court before trial, the shortfall was insignificant (less than 4%), and the plaintiff's claim was grossly exaggerated and his conduct increased costs and delayed disclosure, the court exercised its discretion under RDC O 62 r 5 to vary the costs order nisi and disallow recovery of plaintiff's costs from 7 December 2020 onwards; additionally the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the variation application.
2 Oct 2019

LAI YAU TAI v. MORAL ACCORD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1316
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI22/2015

The court found that the plaintiff maintained two distinct and separable sets of allegations against (i) the 1st and 2nd defendants and (ii) the 3rd defendant; the plaintiff failed completely against the 1st and 2nd defendants and much cost was expended on those separate allegations which the 3rd defendant should not be required to fund. The 3rd defendant's blaming of the 1st and 2nd defendants merely repeated the plaintiff's own allegations and did not introduce new blame or cause the plaintiff to join or continue against the 1st and 2nd defendants. Therefore a Sanderson/Bullock order in res…
8 Mar 2019

GRAND POWER INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHAN SING HOI ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 16
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM329/2014

The Tribunal refused to vary the Costs Order Nisi and refused the 1st Respondent's application for indemnity costs: the wide discretion under section 12 LTO and Order 62 Rule 5 did not justify apportionment to 50% nor indemnity costs on these facts; Respondent legitimately defended given high stakes and interconnected issues; Clause 10 DMC does not extend to indemnify a party against litigation between owners in the manner asserted; accordingly the original order that Applicant pay Respondent's costs stands and both summonses are dismissed with no order as to costs of the two applications hea…
24 Oct 2018

SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1304
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2569/2016

Plaintiff's application to vary the costs order was dismissed because he accepted the trial judgment finding both parties dishonest and offered no basis to distinguish himself; the defendants' application for leave to appeal was dismissed because they advanced only bare assertions, produced no new admissible evidence and failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2) DCO.