Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretion as to costs

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

CHEUNG TAK MAN DESMOND AND ANOTHER v. IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 163
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2733/2021

The judge held the plaintiffs had obtained a more advantageous result because judgment awarded the contractual sum plus interest from the date of the writ and, given the pleaded case that the claim was for the partnership, any sums recovered would in law be held for the former partners (Ps' Obligation). The court rejected defendants' construction that the offer would have operated to confer absolute immediate ownership on the plaintiffs and found no relevant error in the costs exercise; defendants had conceded at hearing that indemnity costs would follow if their construction failed. Defendan…
11 Aug 2025

WONG PUI YIN GEORGEANNA (as the administratrix of the estate of WONG CECILIA PUI LUEN, deceased) v. CHEER CREATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 716
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP51/2025

The renewed applications for leave to appeal were refused because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success and the judge's exercise of discretion on costs was not wrong in principle or plainly wrong; the 2nd Defendant had a legal obligation to return the companies' documents so normal costs principles applied, the Plaintiff obtained substantively what she sought, and the new points were either without merit or not properly raised below.
15 May 2025

YOUNG YVONNE v. YOUNG ERIC

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1103/2018

The court ordered payment out of the HK$5,200,000 in court because the funds were held to preserve the estate for beneficiaries, the Plaintiff and Eve Young were each entitled to one third of the estate and there was no good reason to retain the sale proceeds; the interest on the paid-out portions was allocated to the recipients of those portions while remaining funds and interest were allocated to the Defendant; leave to discontinue was granted and, in the exercise of the court's discretion and having regard to fairness and the effective resolution of the dispute, no order as to costs was ma…
15 Sept 2022

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA (ASIA) LTD v. TSE CHING

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1342
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV479/2021

The judge erred in principle by converting the originating summons to writ proceedings on the basis that conversion would merely permit the plaintiff to pursue summary judgment thereafter; that reasoning was not a sound basis for conversion and the judge failed properly to consider whether substantial factual disputes made the originating summons unsuitable and whether the Plaintiff's opposition was reasonable; consequently costs should follow the successful applicant because the Plaintiff unreasonably resisted conversion.
11 Feb 2021

LAI KIM MING JOSEPH TRADING AS JOE LINES CO v. MACROTECH SECURITY & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 179
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3647/2014

The court held that it has jurisdiction under RDC O.3 r.5 to extend time to apply to vary a costs order nisi even after the judgment containing it has been sealed; exercising that discretion on the facts, leave to apply out of time was granted because the delay was short, explained and caused no real prejudice and the plaintiff had arguable merits. On the merits the court found issues 5 and 6 were distinct and materially added to complexity and expense, justifying reduction of the plaintiff's costs recovery by 50%. The costs order nisi was therefore varied and made absolute so that the defend…
4 Jul 2020

MESSRS CHAN & ASSOCIATES v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 402
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCZZ146/2020

The application was dismissed because evidence established that Mr Tian was not detained in Hong Kong and had voluntarily left on 29 June 2020, rendering habeas corpus relief under s22A inapplicable; accordingly the court refused the application and made no order as to costs.
15 Feb 2019

WO CHUN WAH v. CHAU KWEI YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 166
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV271/2017

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions advanced were not necessary to the Court of Appeal's decision: two questions did not arise for decision and one was of little importance to the resolution of the appeal; the Court properly exercised its discretion on costs by making no order between plaintiff and Board for the appeal given the respondent's notice raised issues that required leading counsel and incurred substantial additional costs; exceptional circumstances for leave were not shown.
12 Apr 2017

YBL v. LWC

Citation

YBL v. LWC
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2015

The Court refused to vary its order nisi on costs and made the no order as to costs absolute because the respondent had not achieved full victory and his conduct (including procuring bail funds and legal fees instead of paying maintenance) justified depriving him of costs; the Court held that bail money paid into court is money standing to the respondent's credit and, absent evidence of a valid trust that overrides the court's power, may be ordered applied to satisfy judgment sums under Order 49 Rule 9(1); leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the questions were not…
26 Aug 2015

曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻

Citation

曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3596/2011

The Offer failed to comply with Order 22 rule 5(7) RDC because it did not provide the required terms for acceptance after 28 days and did not clearly delineate reserved costs rights; therefore it was not a sanctioned offer and the plaintiff could not claim indemnity costs under Order 22 rule 24 RDC; the court also declined to exercise its discretion to award indemnity costs on the facts.
31 Oct 2014

MESSRS BAKER & MCKENZIE v. HENNEX INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MESSRS BAKER & MCKENZIE v. HENNEX INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP809/2014

The court allowed correction of a purely arithmetical/clerical error under Order 20 r11 (amending the division of the disputed sum) because it did not disturb the substance of the judgment; the court refused to amend the costs order because that would amount to re‑exercising the court's discretion on costs and was therefore outside the ambit of the slip rule.