Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 22

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2025

GHAZI FAIDI v. QANTEX CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 342
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV296/2023

Retrospective leave to apply to vary the costs order was granted; the sanctioned offer made below could be taken into account for the appeal costs but did not entitle the plaintiff to invoke Order 22 for indemnity costs on appeal; because the defendants succeeded on an important issue the court refused to vary the costs order to indemnity costs and instead ordered party-and-party costs awarded to the plaintiff on summary assessment in the sum of HK$261,840; costs of the application to vary are ordered nisi to follow the event and be assessed summarily.
22 Apr 2021

CHEUNG HAU YING v. NEW PEOPLE’S PARTY

Citation

[2021] HKDC 485
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1636/2019

A sanctioned payment made in the PI Action as a purported global settlement does not constitute a sanctioned payment in the separate EC Claim; where the EC Claim is subsequently settled the change of circumstances triggers s26 ECA set‑off and it would be unjust to allow the plaintiff to accept the sanctioned payment out of time and thereby obtain double recovery; exercising the court's discretion in all the circumstances the application to accept the sanctioned payment out of time is dismissed.
2 Sept 2020

YEUNG KIU YING v. FAIRWOOD FAST FOOD LTD t/a FAIRWOOD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2016/2015

Leave to appeal was granted on proposed ground (1) because the sanctioned offer was held to be invalid for non‑compliance with Order 22 r5 and therefore an accompanying sanctioned payment cannot attract the costs consequences under Order 22; proposed ground (2) lacked a reasonable prospect of success because the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that the EC Action costs provision made the costs order unjust; accordingly leave on ground (2) was refused and a costs order nisi was made apportioning costs between the grounds.
1 Mar 2016

HUNG SAU FUNG v. LAI PING WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

HUNG SAU FUNG v. LAI PING WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/2011

The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of the appeal; the costs order nisi is made absolute and the Judge's costs order in HCPI 240/2011 is varied to substitute references to 22 March 2011 with 16 May 2011 in paragraphs 6 and 7, with the defendants directed to refund to the Director of Legal Aid costs they received for the period 23 March 2011 to 16 May 2011; defendants' application for cross or alternative costs orders is refused as inappropriate and unnecessary.
8 Jan 2016

CEP LTD v. 無錫市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司

Citation

CEP LTD v. 無錫市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/2014

The court upheld the trial judge's exercise of discretion to award the defendant only 70% of its costs due to unreasonable conduct that unnecessarily prolonged the trial; the court upheld the enhanced costs order based on the sanctioned nominal payment (HKD1,015) because the payment could genuinely reflect the defendant's view of its strong case; the court held that Order 22's sanctioned-offer regime does not extend to appeals so a Calderbank offer made for the appeal could be taken into account, and on that basis ordered appellate costs to the defendant on a common fund basis (but not indemn…
27 Aug 2014

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD

Citation

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA362/2011

The sanctioned payment regime grants a prima facie entitlement to costs up to acceptance but does not extend to reserved costs; permitting post‑acceptance adjudication of reserved costs would undermine the certainty central to Order 22; therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the reserved costs claimed and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jun 2014

POLYEVER HOLDINGS LTD v. SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

POLYEVER HOLDINGS LTD v. SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1039/2010

The plaintiff's late application to accept the sanctioned payment was dismissed because there was no material change of circumstances and, critically, the application was very late such that it would unfairly burden court resources and defeat the object of Order 22; accordingly the defendant was permitted to withdraw the sanctioned payment and costs of both applications were ordered against the plaintiff with a certificate for counsel.
17 Feb 2012

MONTRIO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PING SHUN DAVID

Citation

MONTRIO LTD AND ANOTHER v. TSE PING SHUN DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA757/2009

The letter was not a valid sanctioned offer under Order 22 because it failed to include mandatory acceptance provisions; it was not a Calderbank offer because it was not expressed 'without prejudice save as to costs'; however, the exclusionary rule in Order 62 r5(d) applies only to offers expressed 'without prejudice save as to costs', so the open offer could be taken into account. The defendant unreasonably failed to accept the open offer by 9 November 2009 and must therefore pay indemnity costs for the period after that date; the plaintiffs are not entitled to enhanced interest or enhanced…
29 Nov 2010

LEUNG SZE NOK v. TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET

Citation

LEUNG SZE NOK v. TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1470/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the sanction offer by a minor required court approval under Order 22 r4 and the judge properly exercised discretion under Order 62 (considering post‑judgment conduct and that parties could have agreed on interest), so there was no demonstrable error in awarding costs against the plaintiff.
5 Nov 2010

LEUNG SZE NOK v.TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET

Citation

LEUNG SZE NOK v.TSUEN WAN PROPERTIES LTD t/a RIVIERA ICE CHALET
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1470/2007

The court approved the agreed settlement of $160,000 as inclusive of interest and held that Order 22(4) means a sanction offer that requires court approval takes effect only on the court's approval (the date of judgment); therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to interest from the date of writ or the sanction offer. Costs are taxed on a common fund basis and the sum is to be paid into court and invested after specified deductions.