Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs thrown away

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2024

CHAN KA HO ABRAHAM v. MASS CHOICE LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA205/2018

An officer of a corporate judgment debtor who is an examinee under O.48 is not a party to the action and is not automatically liable for the judgment creditor's costs thrown away by aborted examinations; the Master did not err in exercising his discretion to disallow the claim against the Examinees because the hearings were unlikely to produce useful information absent compliance with the Discovery Order and the costs-throwaway principle does not automatically extend to non-party examinees.
6 Jul 2023

CHUI v. CHENG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 774
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV339/2022

The Court of Appeal held that most of the Deputy District Judge's case management decisions fell within the proper exercise of discretion (trial de novo and expunction were within range), but the Unless Order was made without properly considering the children's welfare and was therefore plainly wrong; the costs order as assessed was excessive because only specific items were properly 'thrown away', so the Wasted Costs Order was set aside and substituted with a costs thrown away award of HKD 154,320; a new trial is ordered before another judge; other orders largely stand.
27 Jul 2018

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN, the personal representative of the estate of LIU FUN KEE

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1701
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6728/1998

The master refused the late addition of alternative grounds, upheld the original taxation approach that allowed items directly occasioned by the defendant's summons (on an indemnity basis) and taxed off or reduced items appropriately; accordingly the review was dismissed and the paying party was ordered to pay the receiving party's costs of the review assessed at HKD 12,100.
30 Jun 2017

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BONHAM CREST v. LAI FELIX YIRID AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BONHAM CREST v. LAI FELIX YIRID AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM78/2015

The amendment of the counterclaim was fundamental and substantial, abandoning most original heads of claim and introducing new allegations; therefore the applicant was entitled to recover costs thrown away by the amendment notwithstanding leave to amend or any delay by the applicant, and the usual penalty applies that the respondents pay those costs to be taxed if not agreed at District Court scale.
17 Jun 2016

LOK WAI YEE v. MAN KOON HUNG

Citation

LOK WAI YEE v. MAN KOON HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1181/2014

Applying the two-stage broad‑brush approach from Poon Fan, the court found the plaintiff's claim excessive on a party-and-party basis, adjusted the notional solicitor hourly rate to HKD 3,100, reduced allowed attendance times and photocopying, disallowed travelling expenses, reduced counsel fees to HKD 50,000 (refresher) and HKD 28,000 (opposition), and assessed total payable by defendant at HKD 116,760 to be paid within 7 days.
3 Aug 2012

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD

Citation

SCHINDLER LIFTS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NIKKO SERVICES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/2010

Relief from the sanction was granted because, on the materials, the defendant's non‑compliance was not shown to be intentional, the prejudice to the plaintiff was not irreparable and could be compensated by costs, and the appeal hearing date could still be met; therefore reinstatement was just but conditional on immediate payment of security into court and payment of assessed costs.
14 Aug 2007

L v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

L v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA659/2005

The court exercised its discretion to grant a final adjournment to 11 October 2007 despite counsel's indisposition because of the circumstances, but imposed responsibility for costs thrown away by ordering the plaintiff to pay $30,000, imposed strict timetable directions for filing skeleton arguments and warned the solicitor to ensure future compliance or face potential wasted costs orders.
11 May 1998

SHOEI CO LTD v. LEROY ORIENT CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHOEI CO LTD v. LEROY ORIENT CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL30/1997

Deletion of the original statement of claim and its complete replacement with a pleading alleging different causes of action rendered the bulk of prior work ineffective; therefore those work items constituted 'costs thrown away' recoverable by the 2nd defendant under the consent order, and brief fees were taxable in full because none of senior or junior counsel's work retained continuing value.