Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal aid costs

Legal area

Court

4 Sept 2023

楊艷娥對保良局第一張永慶中學

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1171
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1528/2012

Applicant failed to obtain results better than the sanctioned payments in both matters and there is no injustice in making the mandatory orders under Order 22 r.23; accordingly applicant must pay respondent indemnity costs from 9 Aug 2014 (DCEC 101) and from 6 Dec 2017 (DCEC 1528) to judgment, and pay interest on those costs at judgment rate plus 2%; sanctioned payments are to be applied to the awards and remainders returned subject to the legal aid charge and related arrangements.
12 May 2022

TSUNG TSIN ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER v. LAI KWOK WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1372
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA516/2021

Leave to appeal dismissed because plaintiffs failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the trespass claim lacked merit as evidence indicated D1 and D4 were entitled to be on the Lot and P1's ownership was qualified by trustee obligations, and the balance of convenience favoured defendants given plaintiffs' proposed unrestricted access, prior confrontational conduct and operational interests of the school; costs ordered for defendants.
27 May 2020

LEUNG KA WAI v. KAWIN INTERIOR CONTRACTING CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 437
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2238/2019

The summons for a split trial was granted because the respondent produced documentary evidence showing contracts between it and the applicant's partnership (TNK) supporting good prospects of success on liability, the applicant produced no evidence to rebut employment status, and separating liability from quantum would save costs and avoid duplication given uncertainty over the applicant's fitness for medical examination and likely delay.
29 Aug 2018

謝松發對李巧蘭所經營之林強汽車冷氣工程公司

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1081
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ847/2017

The court held that on the material before it the plaintiff's proposed amended facts were not shown to be wholly untrustworthy as a matter of law; apparent inconsistencies and documentary points (eg invoice notation and cheque date) raised real issues of credibility that should be determined at trial, therefore the amendment is permitted and the defendant's strike‑out application must be dismissed.
29 Dec 2017

ALE THAK PRASAD v. TSANG CHIN KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

ALE THAK PRASAD v. TSANG CHIN KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI579/2012

The court held the MMPI-2 neuropsychological test and report constitute expert evidence requiring leave because interpretation is expert-dependent, the test is not like an objective imaging or lab test, and there is no consensus that it is commonly practised in Hong Kong; on the facts the plaintiff failed to justify necessity, relevance and probative value and leave to adduce the report was refused.
28 Apr 2017

DAMAI SHYAM PARSAD v. PACIFIC CROWN SECURITY SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DAMAI SHYAM PARSAD v. PACIFIC CROWN SECURITY SERVICES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2603/2014

The court found the applicant's evidence to be incredible and that the alleged accident did not occur; the applicant commenced and pursued the application in circumstances amounting to bad faith/oppressive conduct following termination of employment; the respondents' subpoena application was conducted in open court and consented to by applicant's counsel, so there was no ambush. On that basis the court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi and award costs to the respondents on an indemnity basis, with certificate for counsel, and ordered other costs as specified.
29 Jul 2016

KUMARA DEBANAMA v. LUI PUI WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

KUMARA DEBANAMA v. LUI PUI WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1041/2013

Plaintiff was a trespasser to a clearly fenced private Backyard; defendants were occupiers who had taken reasonable precautions (high fences, warning signs, kennel); plaintiff voluntarily accepted the risk by entering despite warnings; plaintiff failed to prove negligence or that regulation 9 conferred a civil cause of action; accordingly claim dismissed and defendants entitled to costs.
23 Feb 2016

楊偉帆對 HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

楊偉帆對 HONITON INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1051/2010

The application for a stay of execution was dismissed because the applicant failed to show an arguable appeal or that execution of the order (including cancellation of the land registration) would make any appeal nugatory; the court awarded costs to the respondent and summarily assessed those costs at HK$55,000 payable by the applicant within 21 days.
23 Mar 2015

LHYC v. CCL

Citation

LHYC v. CCL
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14324/2013

Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the judge did not misexercise her discretion in making a costs order 'in the cause' given the interlocutory nature of the Discovery Summons and the application of RHC Order 62 r.3(2A); the wife's arguments did not demonstrate that the judge was plainly wrong.
1 Jun 2009

TSANG WAI FUN v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG WAI FUN v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1112/2006

The court exercised its case management discretion to disallow the Defendant's late supplemental orthopaedic report, declined to order a joint psychiatric report, and directed that the existing expert reports be adduced without oral evidence because the judge can resolve the issues of pain severity and psychiatric exaggeration on the existing reports and oral evidence from the parties; the trial was reserved for four days and to be set down within four weeks with costs in the cause and Legal Aid taxation.