Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Elgindata principles

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2025

FOO CHAU HUNG 對 FU SHU WAN (also known as FOO SHU WAN) (符樹雲), the administrator of the estate of Foo Chau Ha, Deceased

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1500/2023

The application to vary the costs order was dismissed: the plaintiff was the overall successful party in removing the first defendant as sole administrator and the unsuccessful elements did not materially increase costs so Elgindata did not justify depriving the plaintiff of costs; however the defendant's pre‑litigation conduct and breach of an unequivocal promise justified an order for indemnity costs payable personally by the first defendant (not from the estate).
15 Jun 2018

THE LIQUIDATOR OF WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. YIP KWONG ROBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW735/2002

Costs follow the event but the court exercised its discretion to reduce the successful respondents’ recoverable costs due to discrete issues which materially increased complexity and expense (notably the de facto directorship issue and the contested question of fictitious trades), while recognizing that s276 required proof of loss and that many payments were matched or discharged by third party funds; therefore Applicant ordered to pay 40% of costs up to 14 February 2014 and 70% thereafter to each of the 1st and 2nd respondents with certificate for two counsel, no order as to costs with the 3…
9 Mar 2011

WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

WILTSHIRE TRADING LTD v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL17/2007

Even accepting the respondents' reply submissions and the authorities cited, nothing therein would have changed the legal principles applied or the conclusions reached in the earlier costs decision; there are no strong or exceptional grounds to recall or vary the decision and therefore the application to recall/ vary is refused and the costs decision stands.
9 Mar 2011

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND ANOTHER v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL16/2007

Although the judge did not initially consider the respondents' reply submissions, review of those submissions and authorities showed they would not have altered the legal principles applied or the outcome; absent exceptional reasons the earlier costs decision would not be recalled or varied, and no costs are ordered for the subsequent hearing or written submissions.
9 Mar 2011

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARMONY GOLD LTD AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2007

The court refused to recall or vary its earlier costs decision because it was satisfied that the reply submissions and authorities not previously considered would not have altered the legal principles applied or the outcome; no exceptional reasons existed to reopen the decision; accordingly the December 9, 2010 costs decision stands and there will be no order for costs for the hearing on 14 December 2010 or for subsequent written submissions.
9 Mar 2011

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

CHAN MEI YIU, PADDY AND OTHERS v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1175/2007

The judge concluded that the reply submissions and authorities would not have affected the legal principles applied or the outcome; therefore there were no exceptional grounds to recall or vary the decision made on 9 December 2010 and the application to reopen was refused.
26 Feb 2010

HO KIN KEUNG v. TONG KIN WA

Citation

HO KIN KEUNG v. TONG KIN WA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2620/2008

The plaintiff made an improper and unnecessary claim for pre-trial loss of earnings despite receiving full salary; applying Elgindata principles and the objectives of the Civil Justice Reform, the court deprived the plaintiff of costs in relation to that claim and ordered him to pay the defendant's costs attributable to defending that claim while otherwise awarding costs of the action to the plaintiff from the defendant.
17 Oct 2008

ACTIVE BASE LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND OTHERS

Citation

ACTIVE BASE LTD v. RODERICK JOHN SUTTON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW470/2005

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi: it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to alter the earlier costs direction in form that would affect the High Court Action element as functus officio, and on the merits the applicant failed to show discrete issues caused manifest and separable waste of time or costs under Elgindata principle (iii); issues were interwoven around a single fundamental factual dispute concerning execution of documents so costs should follow the event and the costs order nisi stands.
12 Jul 2007

FONFAIR CO LTD v. UDL MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

FONFAIR CO LTD v. UDL MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2002/2001

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the respondents' conduct did not cause a significant increase in the length or cost of the proceedings: the pleading point was technical and could not reasonably have been raised earlier while the affidavit evidence was already filed, the point was raised promptly when spotted, and even if raised earlier it likely would not have avoided the factual hearing; accordingly the respondents should not be deprived of costs and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
15 Jun 2007

KWKM nee WKM v. KSW

Citation

KWKM nee WKM v. KSW
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV432/2006

The Court of Appeal held the Petitioner was the successful litigant because the final order of $3,380 per month exceeded any valid offer by the Respondent; the judge erred in ordering the Petitioner to pay the Respondent's costs. Costs should follow the event subject to Elgindata mitigation: the Petitioner is deprived of costs for one third of the 11 September 2006 hearing.