Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Litigation conduct

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2025

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3338
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2020

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and maintained that the Plaintiff's costs and 65% of the Defendant's costs be paid out of the Deceased's estate because (i) the proceedings involved two issues apportioned 65% to probate and 35% to beneficial ownership and it was just to order one holistic costs regime, (ii) the Defendant had reasonable grounds to challenge the 2019 Will given the Deceased's and Plaintiff's conduct and medical/circumstantial doubts, and (iii) the Plaintiff's dishonest litigation conduct warranted disapproval and affected apportionment; accordingly the existing or…
27 Nov 2024

YF v. WMP

Citation

[2024] HKFC 215
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1226/2021

The dismissal was set aside because the Husband's absence was excused in all the circumstances: the earlier hearing was improperly vacated at short notice by the wife's unilateral and late request without giving the husband notice, the husband's notification that he would be in the UK had not been addressed in time, and the wife's conduct in requesting the adjournment when she knew the husband would be absent amounted to improper litigation conduct; accordingly the Master's dismissal was unjust and the proper exercise of discretion was to restore the summonses and set aside the dismissal.
23 Jul 2024

MASON GROUP HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as MASON FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LTD) AND ANOTHER v. TAM JOSEPH WING ON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1909
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1114/2021

Indemnity costs were not justified for the whole of Hau’s costs because there was insufficient evidence of mala fides or an ulterior motive by Ps; however the plaintiffs’ late introduction of a substantial 2nd Draft and inaccurate identification of amendments caused unjustified prejudice and extra work to Hau. Accordingly the costs order nisi is varied: costs generally to be party‑and‑party, but the costs incurred by Hau from service of the 2nd Draft to commencement of the Hearing to be taxed on an indemnity basis. Part of the costs of the variation application is to be paid by Hau and the re…
4 Jun 2024

H v. W

Citation

[2024] HKFC 122
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8332/2017

The mother's leave to appeal was dismissed for unexplained delay and procedural non‑compliance; alternatively, on the merits the grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success because the Cost Ruling was supported by findings of the mother's unacceptable litigation conduct and the supervised access costs were reasonably incurred, and therefore leave was not granted.
30 Jan 2024

RMH v. GY

Citation

[2024] HKFC 19
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP38/2020

The court exercised its discretion having regard to the benefit to the child, the significant wealth disparity, the conduct of both parties which increased costs, unnecessary expenditure and prior legal payments; it ordered the father to pay 60% of the mother's costs, with the $2,210,000 already paid to be taken into account, costs to be summarily assessed.
23 Jan 2024

王對陳

Citation

[2024] HKCA 28
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP212/2022

The court found the 12 summonses did not involve complex factual or legal issues, the documents were repetitive and lacked substantive content so time for B2, C1 and D1 should be reduced, D2 is not recoverable in a summary assessment, and on a global simple assessment the petitioner's costs for the 12 summonses were fixed at HK$13,000 payable by the respondent.
4 Jan 2024

H v. W

Citation

[2023] HKFC 258
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8332/2017

Although the default in child-related proceedings is no order as to costs, the court found the Mother’s litigation conduct crossed the line (exaggeration, unreasonable pursuit of weak allegations, suspension of access and apparent ulterior motive) such that it was fair to depart from the usual practice; however the conduct did not justify the extreme remedy of indemnity costs nor the specific recovery of transport and outside-dinner costs. Accordingly the order nisi was varied to require the Mother to pay the Father’s costs of and occasioned by the child-related litigation and Rent-A-Mum serv…
12 Jul 2023

I, M aka K, M v. I, SM

Citation

[2023] HKFC 136
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10984/2020

Exceptional circumstances existed: the respondent adopted an unreasonable and unsustainable financial stance, changed position after trial, and the petitioner has suffered significant depletion of capital risking the children's welfare; accordingly it is justifiable to depart from the usual 'no costs' rule and order the respondent to pay a substantial proportion of costs (75% of relocation costs and 50% of the variation application costs).
15 Feb 2023

KK, H v. PK, H (formerly known as PS, V)

Citation

[2023] HKCA 176
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP312/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge’s findings about the petitioner’s unreasonable litigation conduct were within her evaluative judgment, supported by the record (including the 2nd PTR transcript and prior appellate findings), not plainly wrong, and the adverse costs orders were proportionate and within the judge’s discretion.
7 Mar 2022

JTMW v. NAV

Citation

[2022] HKFC 46
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

Applying LKW v DD, the court found the parties' needs could be met, excluded the Danish house from the matrimonial pool, found no sufficient evidence of litigation misconduct or substantial continuing parental support to justify departing from equal division, and therefore applied an equal division of the distributable matrimonial assets resulting in payment of $450,430 to the wife and the balance to the husband.