Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counsel certificate

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2025

陳連元及另一人對友邦保險（國際）有限公司

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1335
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5048/2020

The court refused permission to appeal because the appellant had no reasonable prospect of success on the costs assessment; applying the summary assessment principles the court found the defendant's claimed costs disproportionate in part, reduced the award and fixed assessed costs at HKD115,000, and confirmed the propriety of granting a barrister certificate given complexity and the sums at issue.
26 Jul 2024

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. FERGURSON HONG KONG LIMITED trading as NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

No good reason was shown to vary the Leave Decision Costs Order Nisi; summary assessment and immediate payment of interlocutory costs was appropriate given absence of special circumstances or substantial grounds to dispute the sums, therefore the Present Summons is dismissed and Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant's costs of this application summarily assessed at HK$21,000 payable forthwith; the existing costs order nisi remains in force.
28 Jan 2022

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1661/2014

The court found parts of the professional work duplicated and the overall counsel fees excessive; applying a broad brush summary assessment the court reduced counsel fees to HK$300,000 (leading) and HK$120,000 (junior) and summarily assessed total fees at HK$680,000, thereby disallowing excessive items and duplication and enforcing the certificate limit on counsel.
28 Jan 2022

LI MING AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2017

On summary assessment the court reduced disputed entries for duplication and excessive time, disallowed the rationale for attendance of three fee earners at hearing, reduced total counsel fees substantially despite the certificate for two counsel, and summarily assessed the total recoverable fees at HK$680,000 (with leading counsel at HK$300,000 and junior counsel at HK$120,000).
28 Jan 2022

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

Costs were summarily assessed by applying reasonableness and proportionality: duplicated work and excessive time were reduced, fees for more counsel than certified were restricted, and a broad-brush reduction produced an assessed total of HK$680,000 in favour of the SH Plaintiffs.
11 Jul 2019

XU XINHONG v. CHEUNG CHU LAU

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI554/2015

It was not unjust to grant enhanced interest under O.22 r.24 RHC; the court awarded enhanced interest on the agreed damages of HK$2,069,307 at 6% above judgment rate from 24 August 2016 to 13 February 2018 and at 10% above judgment rate from 14 February 2018 to 9 March 2018, ordered costs on party-and-party basis up to 24 August 2016 and on indemnity basis thereafter, granted a certificate for counsel for the hearing before the Master, and summarily assessed costs of the application at HK$41,400 under O.62 r.9A RHC.
2 Jun 2017

FUNG MEI YEE v. SZETO SIX CHUN also known as司徒法正

Citation

FUNG MEI YEE v. SZETO SIX CHUN also known as司徒法正
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA311/2015

Defendant materially and intentionally failed to comply with parts of the Discovery Order and the Unless Order; in all the circumstances indemnity costs are awarded up to the filing of the October Affirmation (18 October 2016) and thereafter party-and-party costs with certificate for one counsel; a further unless order is granted to permit final compliance and costs are to be assessed by paper summary assessment and paid forthwith.
2 Jun 2017

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCY MICHAELS v. CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI899/2016

The plaintiff failed to file a proper draft amended statement of claim within the court-directed time, her explanations did not amount to special reasons to justify an extension (appeal did not stay directions, she had legal materials and understood the direction), the materials she did lodge were not proper pleadings and further delay would prejudice the defendant; accordingly the court refused the extension, struck out the statement of claim as to the 1st defendant, dismissed the action against the 1st defendant, and awarded costs and counsel certificates to the defendants with summary asse…
25 Apr 2016

PETER CHEUNG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PETER CHEUNG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2493/2012

The Consolidation Summons was an unmeritorious and tactical attempt to delay enforcement of a final Mainland arbitral award; PDL and the Plaintiffs failed to advance substantive grounds or timely challenge the Mainland Award or the Enforcement Order and their conduct justified indemnity costs. Accordingly indemnity costs with counsel certificate were awarded to Yu for both the Interpleader and Consolidation Summonses, and PDL was ordered to indemnify the Applicant for its costs under the Stakeholder Agreement, to be taxed if not agreed.
25 Apr 2016

NEW HEAVEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU GUOLIN

Citation

NEW HEAVEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. YU GUOLIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA115/2013

The court held that PDL's and the Plaintiffs' late and unsupported attempt to consolidate and to resist release/enforcement of a final Mainland arbitral award amounted to an unmeritorious and tactical attempt to delay enforcement; accordingly indemnity costs were appropriate for both the Interpleader and Consolidation Summonses, counsel certificates were granted for the consolidation matters, and PDL was ordered to indemnify the Applicant's costs under the stakeholder agreement.