Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs orders and apportionment

Legal area

Court

21 May 2025

WU WAI SUN v. WU SIU LING LINDA, in her personal capacity and as the sole executrix of the estate of WOO CHUN SZE, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP196/2018

The summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the costs order made absolute because the action overall was properly characterised largely as an administration action with discrete hostile elements, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate he was the major winner or to provide evidence sufficient to apportion costs or to justify depriving the 1st defendant of indemnity, and the Calderbank offer and refusal to mediate did not justify varying the order.
28 Apr 2025

CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased v. CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW in his capacity as the executor of the estate of CHING CHI SAU, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKDC 722
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2920/2023

Both variation summonses dismissed and the costs order nisi stands: Defendant to pay 70% of Plaintiff's costs of the striking out appeal (exclusive of the New Evidence Summons) and 40% of Plaintiff's costs of the New Evidence Summons, both forthwith with certificate for counsel and to be taxed if not agreed; no order as to costs of the Striking Out Summons. The Court reached this result after assessing actual work done, rejecting competing percentage submissions as unsupported, and assigning adverse costs consequences to Defendant for deploying ambush tactics that materially prejudiced Plaint…
16 Apr 2025

UNITY PROFIT LTD v. LEE CHING LAM

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2503/2017

Lots A and Lot B involved discrete issues; defendant wholly succeeded on Lots A which the court found occupied about two-thirds of the trial time and costs, while plaintiff succeeded on Lot B; applying a broad brush approach and offsetting the parties' respective successes, the court exercised its discretion to make a single overall costs order in favour of the defendant for 40% of his costs of the action and counterclaim, with a certificate for two counsel.
8 Aug 2019

LEE GOO LYNETTE SIU YIN AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI MING DAISY in her capacity as executor of the estate of LI SING KUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1957
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1836/2017

Daisy was not found to have acted so oppressively or egregiously as to merit indemnity costs; accordingly Daisy must pay personally 40% of plaintiffs' costs of the Removal Application (up to and including judgment and drawing of order) on party-and-party basis with certificate for two counsel, D2/D3 (Pak Huen) to pay 5% personally on party-and-party basis, D4–D7 no order as to costs between them and the plaintiffs, costs of adjourned applications reserved, and costs incidental to appointment of independent administrator to be paid from the estate.
29 Jul 2019

FOSHAN NANHAI BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD v. FOSHAN RUIFENG PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL FUEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2014

The court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi because the respondents' unsuccessful Challenge to the applicant's locus caused a significant increase in hearing time, preparation and delay; accordingly the respondents must pay 50% of the costs of the proceedings attributable to the Challenge, and the applicant's summons to vary the costs order nisi is allowed while the respondents' out-of-time variation summons is dismissed.
7 Feb 2018

CHENG NINGNING v. KING & WOOD (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 278
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP163/2012

Adopted an issue-based approach under CJR and Order 62; preliminary issues constituted a separate event and plaintiff lost the majority of substantive preliminary issues which occupied most trial time; Costs Order Nisi (plaintiff to pay 50% of defendant's costs for trial of Preliminary Issues with two counsel certificate) is fair and is made absolute; 4th Bill is not permitted and is struck out; taxation of 1st-3rd Bills is disallowed; costs for Striking Out Summons and Amendment Summons ordered to defendant to pay plaintiff (party-and-party); no overall order as to costs for main proceedings…
31 Aug 2016

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND OTHERS v. BYD COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2114/2007

The court exercised its discretion under RHC Order 62 to depart partially from the default rule that costs follow the event: it ordered costs of and occasioned by paragraphs 1 and 2 of Foxconn's summons to be dealt with as specified and apportioned the substantive hearing costs so that BYD Parties bear 80% of the costs of the substantive argument on paragraphs 1 and 2 (including the 14 April 2016 hearing); costs relating to expert directions were ordered partly in the cause and partly to Foxconn where BYD's application was redundant or unsuccessful, with taxation and certificates for two coun…
15 Jun 2015

SANCTUARY SYSTEMS LTD v. ORIENT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS HONG KONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SANCTUARY SYSTEMS LTD v. ORIENT INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS HONG KONG CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA479/2010

The court found SSL was only entitled to partial success (30%) and that SSL's failure on a distinct 70% caused a significant increase in cost; SSL acted unreasonably by failing to disclose material misappropriation by its witness and by pursuing the 70% claim which arose from SSL's own fault; accordingly the costs order dated 14 February 2014 was varied: the 1st defendant must pay 30% of the plaintiff's costs, the plaintiff bears the 1st defendant's costs of the 11 November 2013 summons, the rest of the order nisi is made absolute, and SSL will bear Orient HK's costs (nisi) to be summarily as…
15 Jul 2008

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HING WONG MANSION v. LEE LENG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HING WONG MANSION v. LEE LENG KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4633/2006

Lee, as a member of the management committee, was liable to pay damages to the Incorporated Owners because the decision to defend the Lands Tribunal action was made improperly and invalidly for want of proper quorum and thus was unreasonable and not protected by s29A; the costs incurred (HK$530,000 plus HK$270,000) were reasonable and recoverable, and Lee was ordered to pay HK$680,000 plus interest and costs.
6 Jun 2008

METRO CITY MANAGEMENT LTD v. TSUI FEE HUNG VINCENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

METRO CITY MANAGEMENT LTD v. TSUI FEE HUNG VINCENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV328/2005

The master refused to vary the taxation: the Court of Appeal’s order absolute awarded two-thirds of costs in relation to the appellant’s appeal only (not the cross-appeal); for the combined proceedings the master properly apportioned work 60% to the appeal and 40% to the cross-appeal given the parties' conduct and the way the bill was prepared; counsel fees are allowable unless shown to be excessive; there is no jurisdiction to deprive the Management Company of interest on the facts without further evidence, and the Management Company was granted 28 days to adduce evidence on the indemnity pr…