Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14 application

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2024

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1073/2021

The court exercised its power to summarily assess costs and, applying a broad brush approach, allowed and fixed specific sums: Order 14 application total at $146,000 (including a $100,000 brief); Order 14 appeal total at $590,000 (consisting of $150,000 for Items B–D5, $40,000 for Item E1, and $400,000 for counsel briefs). The court held that being 'costs in the cause' does not automatically validate counsel fees where no certificate was sought or granted.
25 Nov 2022

STEADFAST INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUENBO CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3578
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2095/2016

The court varied the costs order nisi to require that costs be taxed and paid forthwith if not agreed because the challenged applications were severable and self-contained, Steadfast incurred substantial and provable costs (at least HK$3.5m) justifying separate taxation, delaying payment would cause unfair prejudice given the early stage of the action and the applications were unwarranted and unmeritorious such that immediate payment was an appropriate sanction.
10 May 2019

周軍英 v. 樊少皇AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1255
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA202/2017

The claimed costs of HK$460,671 were unreasonably high given the nature of the Order 14 hearing and appeal; having regard to duplication, excessive time (including nearly 36.5 hours for certain tasks) and inclusion of work not exclusively for the Order 14 application, the judge applied a broad brush summary assessment under Order 62 r 9A and fixed the reasonable costs at HK$300,000.
16 Dec 2015

GORDON ZEE MING JEAN v. NASIR REHMAN

Citation

GORDON ZEE MING JEAN v. NASIR REHMAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1247/2015

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to show any evidential basis for adjournment or a pending legal aid appeal, failed to file any affirmation specifying supporting documents, and his counterclaim lacked evidence to raise a triable issue; therefore the Registrar's refusal of further adjournment and the order for possession and costs were correctly made.
16 Sept 2013

PERCEPTION DIGITAL LTD v. WANG CHUEN

Citation

PERCEPTION DIGITAL LTD v. WANG CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1970/2012

Costs were to be assessed on an indemnity basis; the court applied a broad‑brush summary assessment, accepted the solicitors' hourly rate as reasonable but reduced excessive time entries (attendance on client reduced from 16 to 12 hours; document preparation reduced from 20 to 12 hours), left counsel fees intact, and rounded down the plaintiff's costs to HK$194,000 to be paid forthwith by the defendant.
27 Jun 2007

PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1058/2006

On the evidence and documents before the court the 1st defendant was trading in its own right as seller (pro forma invoices and demand letter describing D1 as seller); the balance sheet defence lacked particularity and was unsustainable; the alleged oral agency agreement was not credible on the surrounding circumstances; accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against D1.
10 Jul 2001

LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LTD. AND OTHERS v. SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

LANDPAC COMPACTION HONG KONG LTD. AND OTHERS v. SINOTRANS (HK) SHIPPING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ204/2000

The judge found on the evidence and hearing that the plaintiffs had pressed the 5th defendant for disclosure and that the 5th defendant unreasonably failed to disclose a viable defence; consequently the wasted costs of the Order 14 application should be borne by the 5th defendant, with parties to be heard on the method of assessment.
19 Dec 1997

Lo Yuk Leung v. Las Vegas Hilton Corporation

Citation

Lo Yuk Leung v. Las Vegas Hilton Corporation
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV251/1997

The application for a stay pending appeal was refused because the judge below was entitled to consider the matter in the round, there was no evidence presented to justify a stay, and the requirement to file evidence now did not amount to prejudice sufficient to render the appeal nugatory; any wasted costs or prejudice can be addressed on appeal or by the trial judge below.
1 Feb 1997

REGENT STYLE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SPORT GRAPHICS USA (HK) LTD

Citation

REGENT STYLE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SPORT GRAPHICS USA (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2324/1996

The defendant had accepted the goods as evidenced by inspection that reported the goods were OK, retention of the goods, payment by cheque with a payment advice indicating payment pursuant to the invoice, and shipment to sub-buyers; therefore there was no arguable case of total failure of consideration and the Master's order granting unconditional leave to defend was set aside, judgment entered for the plaintiff.
16 Dec 1994

HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE v. KADOR LIMITED

Citation

HACHETTE FILIPACCHI PRESSE v. KADOR LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA45/1994

Where a defendant's conduct in amending its defence and offering the substantive relief sought made the action academic, the court will not automatically order costs against a discontinuing plaintiff; however a failed, separate Order 14 application which was not justified on the pleadings should attract its own adverse costs order against the party who brought it.