Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity principle

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2026

RODERICK MILLER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2026] HKCA 20
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV529/2018

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Court of Appeal's Costs Decision lawfully considered the nature and seriousness of proven conduct and related factors when summarily assessing the Law Society's costs and determining a reasonable contribution under LPO s.10(2)(e); the appellant failed to show legal error or that the assessment was plainly wrong and failed to adduce required evidence on challenges to the indemnity principle, therefore no leave was granted and costs ordered to the Law Society to be summarily assessed.
9 Jun 2025

HO YUEN YU IVY v. ZHANG LIHUA

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1789/2024

The indemnity principle was not breached because DeHeng provided contemporaneous drafts and deadlines to BEA, BEA tacitly consented by failing to object, later expressly agreed and paid the bill; however DeHeng’s hourly rates and total claimed legal costs were disproportionate to the straightforward, low‑complexity disclosure task, so on summary assessment the legal costs were reduced to HK$15,000 with administrative compliance charges of HK$1,520 allowed on indemnity basis.
9 Jun 2025

RODERICK MILLER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2025] HKCA 545
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV529/2018

Given admissions before the SDT and the case's relative lack of documentary complexity the Court applied a broad‑brush assessment: it reduced the Law Society's claimed costs and assessed them at HKD 800,000, ordered Mr Miller to pay a 50% reasonable contribution (HKD 400,000) after considering his means, disallowed substantial parts of Mr Miller's claimed appeal costs and limited counsel fees to HKD 250,000, set off the award to produce a net liability (penalty plus balance of costs) and imposed monthly instalments of HKD 4,000 starting 2 August 2025.
9 May 2025

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF SO CHING WAN v. ASSEN LTD (NOW IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP66/2024

The Court refused leave to appeal out of time because the applicant’s delay was inexcusable and significant, the proposed appeal had no real or strongly arguable prospect of success as the discovery sought was irrelevant and a fishing exercise, the bias allegations were unparticularised and meritless, and it was not in the interests of justice to hear a hopeless appeal; accordingly both summonses dismissed and indemnity costs ordered to the respondents (HK$244,150.50) assessed on summary basis as order nisi.
24 Dec 2019

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1452
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/2015

The court exercised its discretion to award party-and-party costs because the interim payment application was for the sole benefit of Waddington and was not a necessary part of performing duties for the Company; absent evidence that Thomas Chan still controlled the Company, the Company was entitled to oppose the application and the indemnity principle did not apply to the interim payment.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. WONG SUK-WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SUK-WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA54/2016

The Registrar is entitled to withhold taxation and require DoJ to supply the post-qualification experience/seniority of the government counsel and particulars of case complexity before fixing hourly rates; absent such information the Registrar will not apply the highest hourly rate and future DoJ bills lacking such particulars are incomplete and must be returned.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. MAK TAK-ON

Citation

HKSAR v. MAK TAK-ON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA618/2015

Taxation of the DoJ bills is withheld pending DoJ's provision of information on the post‑qualification experience (seniority) of the government lawyers who performed the billed work and, where applicable, particulars of case complexity; without that information bills are incomplete and must be returned; Registrar cannot fairly assess or apply appropriate hourly rates in its absence.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. CHAN KIN-KEUNG, JOHN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KIN-KEUNG, JOHN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA427/2015

The Registrar will withhold taxation of the Department of Justice's bills until DoJ supplies particulars of the post-qualification experience/seniority of the government counsel involved and information on case complexity where applicable; future DoJ bills lacking such information are incomplete and will be returned; no order as to costs for the hearing.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. CHOI LOK YIN, KINGSTON

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI LOK YIN, KINGSTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA675/2015

Taxation of the Department of Justice's bills is withheld until DoJ supplies information on the post-qualification experience (seniority) of the government counsel involved and, where applicable, details of the complexity of the cases; future DoJ bills lacking such information are incomplete and will be returned; no order as to costs for this hearing.
14 Mar 2017

HKSAR v. FUNG CHI-WAH

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG CHI-WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA350/2015

The Registrar must withhold taxation of the Department of Justice's bills of costs until DoJ provides particulars of the post-qualification experience (seniority) of the government counsel responsible for the billed items and details of case complexity where relevant; absent that information bills are incomplete and will be returned; no order as to costs for this hearing.