17 Sept 2024
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the proposed grounds do not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and are unrelated to the orders challenged; the costs and the orders under Order 22 r23 were properly made and not shown to be erroneous, and the applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs assessed summarily at HK$10,000.
27 Oct 2023
The judge found the husband had not shown a reasonable prospect of success on any pleaded ground and no other reason in the interests of justice existed to grant leave under s63A(2); the trial judge had lawfully and properly exercised discretion in respect of costs and property division and no arguable legal or factual error was identified, therefore the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of $1,000 (interim).
1 Sept 2022
The order nisi is made absolute because the court concluded that both parties contributed to the post-3 March 2022 conduct, prior unreasonable conduct had already been accounted for in the order nisi, and the Calderbank correspondence did not establish that the Plaintiff should be awarded the costs sought (the Defendants had made a reasonable offer of HK$39,000); therefore no variation of the order nisi was justified.
4 Jun 2021
Although acquitted defendants are ordinarily entitled to costs, the judge exercised the statutory discretion to refuse costs because the defendant gave a demonstrable false account in a recorded interview that created self-invited suspicion directly related to the charge, which justified denying the costs application.
9 Apr 2020
The court exercised its discretion under Order 62 to vary the costs order nisi because the plaintiff was found to have significantly exaggerated injuries and to have malingered; that conduct materially lengthened cross-examination and increased costs, warranting departure from the usual costs-follow-the-event rule and resulting in defendants being ordered to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs while the plaintiff bears the costs of the summons.
20 Dec 2019
The court held that ECAO s.20B(3) limits the content of relief payments but does not oust the court's jurisdiction to order costs against the Board; costs power arises under HCO s.52A and is reinforced by ECAO s.29; the appropriate starting point in joinder cases is generally no order as to costs because of the Board's statutory 'filtering' role, but the court retains wide discretion to order costs where the Board's conduct warrants it; and ECAO s.29 empowers the Board to make settlement offers and to enter binding settlement agreements which are contractually binding and not displaced by lat…
20 Nov 2015
The tribunal's discretionary variation of the costs nisi was lawful and not infected by error of law; CLP failed to show a reasonable prospect of success because approaches 2 and 3 and the CB elements were found unreliable or unnecessary and demonstrably increased hearing length and costs, and taxing difficulties do not justify overturning a costs decision properly exercised within discretion.
7 Jan 2013
The magistrate correctly exercised discretion in refusing costs because she reasonably accepted prosecution witnesses as credible and relied on the appellant's immediate admissions and inconsistent statements which amounted to self‑suspicion; the appellate court found no error in those credibility findings or in excluding unrelated fresh documents, and therefore dismissed the appeal.
3 Nov 2005
An appeal against a costs order in employees compensation proceedings requires leave under s.14(3)(e) of the High Court Ordinance; section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance does not operate to permit an appeal as of right from costs orders, and 'any order of the Court' in s.23 is to be read as excluding costs orders governed by the District Court's rules and discretion.
6 Dec 1999
The Calderbank letter in this case was limited to 'total costs and disbursements' of the action as disclosed in the bill and did not include interest or taxing fees; even if interest from judgment is included and the offer is narrowly beaten, the court will exercise its discretion and, having found the plaintiffs' refusal unreasonable and the margin de minimis, order the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the taxation.