Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-party costs

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2025

TARGET INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. NERICO BROTHERS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1024
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV223/2022

Applying Dymocks principles and the evidence, the court found Mr Lee could not have had a bona fide belief that the appeal had arguable merits nor that pursuing it was in the Company's best interests given prior admissions that the debt was due and lack of consideration of the major creditor; accordingly it was just to make a non-party costs order against him personally.
30 Jul 2025

DIAMOND TREASURE LTD v. MAN KAM LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1252
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4419/2014

The court exercised its discretion on costs and held that although the 1st respondent unsuccessfully resisted the first stage, that alone did not entitle him to costs for that stage; allegations of suspicious fund transfers were not established and conduct in separate proceedings was irrelevant; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied so that the plaintiff must pay 50% of the costs of the application with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed, and the costs order nisi is made absolute as varied.
9 Apr 2025

RE BGA HOLDINGS LTD (Formerly Known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 322
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV591/2021

The Company failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because contemporaneous documentation (audited financial statements and board papers), objective post-meeting conduct and the novation recital overwhelmingly supported that the PBM Loan was repayable on demand and that the alleged express/oral agreement, implied term, vessel purchase agreement and novation were not credible or legally effective; the Court of Appeal will not overturn the primary judge's factual assessments absent palpable error.
11 Mar 2022

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. HUI CHI YUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1423/2015

The court refused to make a non‑party costs order against the liquidators because the high threshold for such an exceptional order was not met: there was no established impropriety or bad faith, the claim was not wholly misconceived, the liquidators had creditor approval and acted in the interests of creditors, they were not 'real parties' in the sense of self‑interested commercial funders, and the existence of security for costs was a material discretionary reason against imposing non‑party liability; accordingly the liquidators were joined for costs purposes only and the Non‑Party Costs Sum…
26 Apr 2018

WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA714/2007

On the admitted and established findings (ownership, control, funding and benefit) and the trial findings of fabricated documents, lies and improper litigation conduct attributable to Mr Lee, he was the real party to the litigation; the admission of underlying proceedings' evidence was appropriate; summary determination was justified; notwithstanding some delay and lack of warning no real prejudice was shown; therefore in the interests of justice Mr Lee must personally bear the taxed costs awarded to the Wu Yi Parties, with HCA714 costs on an indemnity basis and the others on a party-and-part…
26 Apr 2018

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1957/2005

The judge found on admissible evidence from the underlying proceedings that Mr Lee was the real party — sole or controlling owner of BIC, the funder and controller of the litigation, who would benefit from its success and who caused and pursued claims supported by fabricated and dishonest evidence — and that despite delay and lack of warning there was no real prejudice; therefore in the interests of justice Mr Lee must personally bear the taxed costs (with interest) of the Wu Yi Parties, with HCA 714/2007 costs on indemnity and the others on party-and-party basis.
18 Oct 2017

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1326/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and the judge's refusal to reserve costs, grant intervention and award costs on an indemnity basis were within his judicial discretion and not shown to be wrong in law or principle.
11 Nov 2015

MARSHEL EXPORTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA

Citation

MARSHEL EXPORTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW274/2012

Joinder of GT and JSL for costs purposes granted; costs order made against GT alone because it was a self-interested funder with contractual indemnities and no credible evidence of inability to pay; no personal costs order against the liquidators because the Bank failed to establish impropriety or that it was just to make them personally liable, and because availability of security for costs and public interest in enabling liquidators to perform duties weighed against such an order. Ordered nisi that Bank's costs against GT be paid by GT and that JSL's costs be paid by the Bank; costs to be t…
28 May 2015

AU YEUNG WAN AND ANOTHER v. TSUI SAU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

AU YEUNG WAN AND ANOTHER v. TSUI SAU YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA484/2010

O.16 r.1(2) requires leave where a defendant issues a third party notice after serving a defence when the action was begun by writ; the court must give effect to the clear statutory text and the notices issued by the 1st defendant without leave are set aside. An application for leave must follow O.16 r.2(1) procedures (ex parte application supported by affidavit). The defendants' application for an order for non-party costs against the former 2nd plaintiff was dismissed as misconceived and addressed by the costs rules (O.62).
30 Oct 2013

RE MITSA (HK) LTD

Citation

RE MITSA (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW67/2012

On the evidence the court could not conclude that YL Chu and Katherine Chu caused an abuse of process or breached fiduciary duties prior to about early October 2012; accordingly costs incurred prior to 10 October 2012 should be borne by the Company on an indemnity basis. Once advice made their authority doubtful and the High Court Action was abandoned, by 10 October 2012 the directors ought to have instructed settlement and costs incurred thereafter were unnecessary and attributable to them; accordingly costs of the proceedings from 10 October 2012 to 31 October 2013 inclusive are ordered to…