Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Immediate taxation of costs

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2021

UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3432
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2236/2019

The summons was dismissed because the defendant was significantly dilatory in seeking variation (no justifiable reason for the 8- and 6-month delays), failed to provide evidential support of financial hardship, and could not validly seek variation of the sealed September Costs Order (functus officio); on the merits the balance of discretionary factors did not favour immediate taxation of costs.
15 Jan 2020

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA652/2017

The costs order nisi is varied: the 1st to 3rd defendants must pay the costs of the 9 October 2019 hearing forthwith; the plaintiff is awarded the costs of the 3rd defendant's discharge application (other than the costs of the 2019 hearing) to be paid by the 3rd defendant forthwith and to be taxed if not agreed; the plaintiff's costs of the defendants' discharge summons and variation summons otherwise remain costs in the cause; immediate taxation of the 2019 hearing costs is ordered; indemnity costs for the 3rd defendant's application are refused.
27 Apr 2012

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4699/2001

The court held that although the defendants' opposition was not frivolous, the grounds were devoid of merit and, consistent with CJR practice, varied the costs order nisi so that the defendants must pay the costs occasioned by their opposition and the reserved costs; such costs are to be taxed if not agreed and paid forthwith; a bill of costs must be filed within 7 days and defendants may file objections within 7 days thereafter.
4 Jun 2004

YUEN O I YEE LISA v. CHONG KING PO, SALLY

Citation

YUEN O I YEE LISA v. CHONG KING PO, SALLY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7079/2003

The court found the claimant's institution of seven separate but factually identical defamation actions against former colleagues constituted an abuse of process because the multiplicity was intended to obtain collateral advantages (apologies/confessions to use against Heath and to re-open EOC proceedings) and to multiply and aggravate defendants' and Heath's costs to coerce settlement; however, because a prima facie cause of action in defamation existed, the court ordered the proceedings stayed (not dismissed) except to allow applications for consolidation and directed that costs be paid for…
4 Jul 1994

AKTIESEL SKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

AKTIESEL SKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1670/1989

The usual order in interlocutory proceedings is that costs be "in any event"; no factor or combination of factors in this case justified departing from that practice (the taxation was not shown to warrant immediate payment without causing undue disruption), therefore the costs previously awarded to the defendants are ordered to be in any event and the costs of this application are to be to the plaintiff in any event.

Hong Kong Case Law

UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA

CHAU YUET CHING BRENDA v. CHAN BO MAN WILLIAM AND OTHERS

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PLACE LTD AND OTHERS

YUEN O I YEE LISA v. CHONG KING PO, SALLY

AKTIESEL SKABET DANSK SKIBSFINANSIERING v. WHEELOCK MARDEN & CO. LTD. AND OTHERS