Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14a

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

HOPE RICH CONSULTING LTD v. LAU MING FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1263/2023

The Court held the Master's costs order was unreasonable and involved legal error because the plaintiff's failure to plead material facts made the defendant's Order 14A summons properly brought; the Master's invitation and the plaintiff's subsequent substantial amendments rendered the summons academic and fairness required the defendant to recover costs; the Master's order was set aside and replaced with an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the summons (HK$190,000) and of the appeal (HK$100,000), both with certificates for counsel.
31 Dec 2024

TIN HAU WUI ALSO KNOWN AS TANG TIN HAU WUI WITH TANG FUK LEUNG AS THE MANAGER v. TING WAI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2203
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP356/2013

The review summons under Order 62 r33 was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements and time limits of that rule and, on the merits, the costs of the Order 14A hearing were not "costs occasioned by the counterclaim" under s16C(1)(b)(ia) LAO because the Order 14A determination disposed of the main cause by rejecting the adverse possession defence; thus the Director of Legal Aid was not liable for those costs.
26 Sept 2024

TASMANIA FEEDLOT PTY. LTD AND OTHERS v. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ9/2023

The application to amend the strike out Summons to add a preliminary point of law was dismissed because the newly raised issue (construction and enforceability of the Package Limitation Clause and whether the Waybill formed part of the contract) is at least arguably dependent on factual evidence, is not a straightforward legal question, and could not be fairly or efficiently resolved within the very limited time before the scheduled hearing; deletion of specified parts of the Summons was allowed.
29 Jun 2021

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 927
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/2020

The Court made the costs orders nisi absolute because the Plaintiff succeeded on the substantive issue (clog on the equity of redemption), the Defendants were not entitled to a costs award based on Ground 1 (which the Court did not decide and which did not justify variation), apportionment was inappropriate, and there was no basis to disturb the Recorder's exercise of discretion on costs below; accordingly each Defendant must pay the Plaintiff's costs of their respective summons to be taxed if not agreed.
3 Jun 2020

DING HUIRONG v. CHINA TIMES SECURITIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA365/2018

The court held that the 5% reduction in the costs order nisi already accounted for the plaintiff's partial failure on the Order 14 application; the affidavits and preparatory work were relevant to the Order 14A issue so costs should not be split or reserved, and the applications to vary the costs order nisi were dismissed and the order nisi made absolute with costs to the plaintiff.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. NANAKO YABE

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA757/2018

Because the defendants' affirmations and draft defences raised clear triable factual issues intertwined with questions of construction, summary judgment and Order 14A determination were inappropriate; the plaintiff proceeded recklessly after those materials were filed and must bear the costs consequences, so the costs order nisi was varied to award indemnity costs for the period after 30 July 2018, refuse a certificate for two counsel and direct summary assessment on paper with a timetable for filing and objections.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. PASCAL VALANSOT

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA756/2018

Triable factual issues were clearly raised after the Employees' affirmations of 30 July 2018 and the plaintiff chose to continue the summary judgment/determination application despite those issues; the continuance was close to reckless and constituted a litigant risk for which the plaintiff must pay, therefore the costs order nisi is varied so that the Employees' costs of the Summons incurred after 30 July 2018 are paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis; refusal of an order for two counsel; costs to be summarily assessed on paper with directions for filing and objection.
3 Apr 2019

QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD v. GUEGAN VIANNEY ERIC

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA753/2018

The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment/determination application due to clear triable factual issues and ruled that because the plaintiff continued the application after being aware of those issues, the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the Summons incurred after 30 July 2018 on an indemnity basis; the court refused a certificate for two counsel, granted one counsel only, and ordered the defendants' costs to be summarily assessed on paper with procedural directions for filing statements of costs.
12 Mar 2018

KWOK MEI HA MAY v. CHIU YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 658
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3079/2015

The applications to strike out the defence and counterclaim and for summary determination under Order 14/14A were misconceived because the matters raise serious and complex equitable issues (constructive trust, proprietary estoppel, notice) that are plainly arguable and require trial; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is dismissed and costs awarded against the plaintiff.
5 Feb 2018

KWOK MEI HA MAY v. CHIU YUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 462
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3079/2015

Plaintiff's applications were dismissed because the defendant has arguable equitable defences: there is an arguable constructive trust in favour of Mr Tang and a factual dispute whether his equitable interest was gifted to the defendant and whether the plaintiff had notice; these are triable issues making strike out and summary judgment inappropriate, and Order 14A is unsuitable because questions posed were hypothetical.