Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs orders

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

WONG SHING TAT v. WONG MEI LIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 813
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4489/2024

The District Court lacks jurisdiction to exercise the functions under MHO s10A (which applies to the Court of First Instance), and a guardian ad litem’s powers are confined to the ordinary conduct of litigation and do not extend to severing joint tenancy or general property management; there was insufficient evidence of impropriety, adverse interest or unfitness to remove the guardian ad litem, so both the application for severance and the application to remove WSY were dismissed, with specified costs directions.
11 May 2026

田勤先as executor of the estate of 田家庚, deceased 對田珍妮

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2022

Defendant's explanation for non-attendance was not reasonable because the adjourned date was given in open court and no timely prompt was required; two subpoenas were unnecessary as plaintiff agreed to call the witnesses and had applied for subpoenas, the appeal/leave application was out of time and lacked reasonable prospects, and the third subpoena failed because the defendant made no attempt to contact the proposed witness; accordingly the restoration application was refused and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
28 Apr 2026

LI LI HONG v. CHEN DI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2091/2024

Although the normal order on granting unconditional leave to defend is costs in the cause, the court found strong reasons to depart given the history, the significance of the dispute and the inherent weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. After defendants filed evidence on 10 February 2025 the plaintiff ought to have ceased the O.14 proceedings within a reasonable period (two weeks, i.e. by 24 February 2025). The plaintiff's persistence after that date caused wasted costs. The proper order is that the plaintiff bears defendants' costs of the O.14 summons incurred after 24 February 2025, the rema…
22 Apr 2026

有關郭文英以勤學樂園之名營業(勤學樂園)的事宜

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB98/2026

The debt is founded on valid and enforceable court orders; the debtor did not comply with the statutory demand, failed to show a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or provide credible evidence to impugn the judgments, and the debtor's appeals were dismissed; accordingly a bankruptcy order was proper.
17 Apr 2026

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 609
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP208/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's factual findings — that the litigation was attributable to the conduct of the deceased and the Plaintiff and that there was a reasonable need to investigate the 2019 will — were open to him and justified departing from the usual costs rule; the Judge properly considered pre-action conduct and Plaintiff's stonewalling as relevant to costs; the plaintiff's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and did not show any error of principle or plainly wrong exercise of discretion.
13 Apr 2026

BGA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA631/2022

Leave to appeal is granted only on Grounds 2(cc) and 3 insofar as they relate to the Lohas Transaction because Greenwood (CA) 2nd meets Ladd v Marshall condition 2 and is reasonably arguable it would affect the assessment of risk of dissipation; leave on grounds attacking the quantum determination for the Ausca Transaction and most other grounds is refused because plaintiffs' valuation evidence was unreliable or deficient and the risk of dissipation was not established on the evidence; Amendment Summons granted; Leave Summons in respect of new evidence acceded; costs orders nisi made reflecti…
1 Apr 2026

PREMIER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. SO WANG FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 601
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2024

The court held the $180,000 withheld at drawdown should not be treated as additional 'deemed interest' for ERI calculation because it was applied to discharge contractual interest and including it would double count; the $333,417 charged by the intermediary was not 'actually lent' and, by reason of s27(3) and the deeming provision in s27(4), should be set off and the amount actually lent is thereby reduced to $371,583; using that reduced principal produces an ERI of 76.69% (>60%) making the Loan Agreement unenforceable under s24, so the High Court judgment for the plaintiff was set aside and…
24 Mar 2026

CHOW CHI YI v. POON TAK LUN (also known as 潘德鄰)

Citation

[2026] HKDC 502
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3293/2023

Leave to adduce a second expert was granted because, on balance and in the interests of justice, the single joint expert had not adequately addressed a central technical issue—the timing and significance of moisture content readings relating to the external wall source—which could not be satisfactorily resolved by clarification or cross-examination alone; accordingly the appeal against the Master's order was dismissed and the defendant permitted to adduce his own expert report.
20 Mar 2026

伍樂詩對張朗賢

Citation

[2026] HKLdT 12
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1041/2025

The Tribunal found on the evidence that the landlord, by conduct, permitted Lam Chi Tat to act as her agent and that his communications created apparent authority; coupled with the parties' conduct leading to a drafted cancellation agreement and arrangements for 14 August 2025, the landlord was bound by that arrangement and could not later repudiate it. Given those findings and the procedural circumstances, the Tribunal exercised its power under the Ordinance to stay/set aside the costs order made on 16 January 2026 and declined to award costs in respect of the respondent's 20 January 2026 no…
12 Mar 2026

譚對歐陽

Citation

[2026] HKCA 403
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP276/2022

The Court dismissed the first respondent's application to set aside the Court of Appeal's costs orders because the Court of Final Appeal's decision did not mandate setting aside and the costs orders properly reflected the procedural history; the application lacked a legal basis.