Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs orders and assessment

Legal area

Court

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

HCMP69/2025

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Costs Order nisi and ordered DBS Bank to pay the defendants' costs because the defendants had raised triable defences (no right to call loans and breach of the prevention principle) supported by correspondence and affirmations that should have put the plaintiff on notice that the originating summons procedure was inappropriate; DBS Bank's resistance was therefore penalized. The court assessed the costs statements on a broad‑brush basis, disallowed certain items (eg unnecessary solicitor duplication and late filing correspondence) and fixed awards…
16 Sept 2024

MEI KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING v. PRIZEMART LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2428
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA283/2023

The appeal was dismissed: the costs order was properly interpreted as awarding the costs of the amendment summons in accordance with the final award on the December 4 summons (and the defendant had effectively not opposed placing the costs in the cause below), and the Master did not err in granting leave to amend because the new paragraphs raised factual issues (technical meaning of 試車 and contextual negotiations) appropriate for trial and the defendant had not shown irreparable prejudice from delay or the death of Mr Ng that would justify refusal to amend.
9 Jun 2022

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1743
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP877/2020

The summons to vary the costs order was dismissed because the Foundation was the overall winner having secured taxation of 54 of 76 bills; the monetary value of untaxed fees was not determinative of the effective winner; the Foundation's conduct did not sufficiently disentitle it to costs; WG's partial success did not justify varying the costs order nisi.
2 Sept 2021

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1402/2020

Security for costs was ordered because the plaintiff had unpaid accrued and assessed costs liabilities, insufficient paid‑up capital, no convincing evidence of current or expected ability to meet adverse costs, and third‑party funders were willing to fund pursuit of claims but not settlement of adverse costs; the court concluded the risk to defendants of being unable to recover costs outweighed the risk of stifling a genuine claim and therefore ordered security to the pre‑trial review stage in specified sums and summary assessed costs to be paid.
2 Sept 2020

方木溪對吳金妹及曾漢生經營的曾潮記及另二人

Citation

[2020] HKDC 714
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2088/2014

The court held that the third respondent has locus standi to apply to vary the interim costs order because it has statutory duties and potential exposure under the Fund; the first respondent's absence since 2017 did not materially increase costs nor justify treating it differently, so the interim costs order was varied to require the first respondent to pay 60% of the costs of the compensation assessment (matching the second respondent). However, for the present summons seeking variation the fair order was that no costs be awarded between the parties and the applicant's own costs to be assess…
26 Sept 2001

DE WONG AU, EDITH v. KHO SIN TEK, HENRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

DE WONG AU, EDITH v. KHO SIN TEK, HENRY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP12/2000

Master was correct to award costs to Oscar Wong in respect of the summons issued 24–25 April; master was wrong to order no costs for the hearing — costs from the issue of the summons (24 April) to the date of the appeal hearing are to be borne by Henry Kho and assessed on a gross sum basis; court assessed and ordered payment of HKD 68,500 payable forthwith.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

MEI KING MACHINERY ENGINEERING v. PRIZEMART LTD

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

方木溪 對 吳金妹及曾漢生經營的曾潮記及另二人

DE WONG AU, EDITH v. KHO SIN TEK, HENRY AND ANOTHER

方木溪對吳金妹及曾漢生經營的曾潮記及另二人