Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Master's discretion

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2018

KWONG YUK NGOR v. VOCATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1376
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC189/2002

Regulation 9(3) of the Legal Aid Regulations does not authorize taxation of assigned solicitors' common fund costs upon discharge of legal aid before determination or conclusion of the main proceedings; the stay pursuant to O 62 r 9D should remain in force and the application to vary/revoke the Stay Order is dismissed; taxation must await determination of the EC Case unless a narrow exception under O 62 r 9D(4) or O 62 r 4(1) is properly exercised.
6 Dec 2017

YUAN CHU CHEN AND OTHERS v. CHEN MIN CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

YUAN CHU CHEN AND OTHERS v. CHEN MIN CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1714/2015

The court upheld the master's assessment of costs as reasonable and within his discretion because the Panamanian expert evidence was unnecessary, the solicitors' time claim was excessive for the nature of the application, and the counsel's fee claimed was excessive; therefore the appeal was dismissed and the master's assessment of HK$193,000 stands.
21 Mar 2013

WONG ANGIE SIE YING v. DOW JONES PUBLISHING CO (ASIA), INC.

Citation

WONG ANGIE SIE YING v. DOW JONES PUBLISHING CO (ASIA), INC.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA349/2011

Appellant withdrew the appeal after substantial procedural steps had been taken and costs incurred; the 11 December 2012 letter did not amount to a concession removing respondent's entitlement to costs; part of the appeal (against the master's order on defendant's summons) was unjustified from the outset; accordingly respondent was entitled to the costs of and occasioned by the appeal which were assessed at HK$120,000 payable within 28 days.
26 Jan 2006

DEACONS (a firm) v. YAN SU ZHER AND ANOTHER

Citation

DEACONS (a firm) v. YAN SU ZHER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1784/2005

The court had jurisdiction under Order 58 r 1 to rehear the Master's reconsideration and, applying its discretion, allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the 12 October 2005 order that prevented Deacons from prosecuting for payment because Deacons had an enforceable contractual right under the 7 March agreement and no sufficient reason existed to deny enforcement.
23 Sept 2005

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2347/2004

The Master did not err in law nor act unreasonably in ordering that the costs of the Order 14 Summons and the Withdrawal Summons be costs in the cause and that the costs of the hearing on the Withdrawal Summons be to the defendants; premature issuance of Order 14 and the unnecessary length of the costs hearing justified the costs orders. The appeal is dismissed.
29 Jan 2005

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. LEUNG YIK HONG, FRED AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. LEUNG YIK HONG, FRED AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7257/2003

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had no realistic prospect of success; the post‑hearing letters merely reiterated earlier submissions and would not have affected the decision; and Master Ko lawfully exercised his discretion to refer the summons to a judge, a decision not subject to appeal under Order 32 r17(2).
29 Jan 2005

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHIU WING WAH WILSON

Citation

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHIU WING WAH WILSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7080/2003

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff had no realistic prospect of success and Master Ko lawfully exercised his discretion under Order 32, rule 17(2) to refer the defendants' summons to a judge, an order from which no appeal lies; the plaintiff's late letters did not raise new matters and would not have affected the outcome.
17 Feb 2003

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PEACE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LAM MABLE v. WORLD PEACE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4699/2001

No ground established to disturb the Master's discretion: defendants had a bona fide defence, the Master's global approach to related summonses was lawful and not unreasonable, and the appropriate outcome was to dismiss the appeal and order costs of the appeal against the Plaintiff.
11 Nov 1988

HUNG KAI FINANCE CO LTD v. THE HAN KING

Citation

HUNG KAI FINANCE CO LTD v. THE HAN KING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV118/1988

The master lawfully exercised his discretion in refusing to commit the debtor to prison because the judgment creditor's solicitor had unequivocally abandoned any application for committal; Order 49B does not grant a master jurisdiction to imprison on his own motion; attempts to revive the abandoned application based on the master's injudicious comments were not permitted; the appeal is therefore dismissed.