Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 22 rule 23

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2026

GURUNG JOU BAHADUR v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI43/2017

Because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment more advantageous than the sanctioned payment and did not show that it would be unjust to make the orders under Order 22 r 23, the court must make the prescribed orders: costs to be taxed on the High Court Scale up to 26 July 2024 and on indemnity basis thereafter, release of the sanctioned payment, and taxation of legal aid costs under the Legal Aid Regulations.
17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2174/2020

O.22 r.23 consequences applied: the court held sanctioned payments in DCEC 2171, 2172, 2174 and 962 were valid, the Applicant failed to obtain better judgments, and nothing made it unjust to impose the mandatory consequences; costs orders were varied to require the Applicant to pay the Respondent's costs on indemnity basis from the specified post‑acceptance dates with certificate for counsel, directed joint taxation before the same Master, ordered sanctioned payments paid out (with HK$300 to Applicant in DCEC 2171), and refused the Applicant's requested variations (no order/50% or change in a…
17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2172/2020

Sanctioned payments were valid and Applicant failed to obtain judgments better than those payments; accordingly, under Rules of District Court O.22 r.23 the court must impose the prescribed costs consequences; the Applicant's requests to vary the Costs Order Nisi were refused; costs in the four proceedings where sanctioned payments were made are to be taxed on party and party up to the specified cut-off dates and on indemnity basis thereafter with certificate for counsel, interest ordered on costs at the specified aggregate rate periods, sanction sums to be paid out to respondent's solicitors…
6 Feb 2025

YIP KIN HO v. CHAN KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 210
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3203/2021

The application to vary the Costs Order Nisi was allowed because the plaintiff failed to beat the sanctioned payments/offers and the claim was found grossly exaggerated; the plaintiff bore the burden to prove damages and to disclose documents prior to trial, and it was not unjust to make orders under Order 22 r23. Enhanced interest of 3% above judgment rate on defendants' costs from 30 September 2021 to 15 November 2024 was appropriate given the exaggeration.
20 Dec 2024

CHEUNG HON KIN v. CHUBB LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (formerly known as NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE WORLDWIDE LTD and ACE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD respectively)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2711/2016

It was not unjust to make the orders under RHC O.22 r.23. The costs order nisi was varied: costs allocated between plaintiff and Director of Legal Aid according to periods of legal aid; indemnity costs ordered for the period 21 June 2023 to date of judgment payable by the plaintiff; enhanced interest awarded at 4% above judgment rate (12.875% p.a.) for the Director/paid period 11 April 2019–20 June 2023 and at 5% above judgment rate (13.875% p.a.) for plaintiff for 21 June 2023–date of judgment; sanctioned payments totalling HK$1,500,000 and accrued interest to be paid out to defendant; costs…
2 Nov 2023

LI CHUN BON AND ANOTHER v. CHINA MOBILE HONG KONG CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1507
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ617/2017

The confidentiality provision was confined to settlement negotiations and did not create an additional element to be bettered at trial; plaintiffs rejected an unconditional offer of HK$63,333.40 plus costs, proceeded to trial and obtained a less advantageous result, engaging Order 22 r 23; it was not unjust to award enhanced interest and indemnity costs given the circumstances and conduct; applying the compensatory rationale and local precedent the court exercised discretion to order party-to-party costs up to and including 23 August 2017, indemnity costs thereafter, and interest on post-23 A…
6 May 2022

THAPA HARI BAHADUR v. PARAMOUNT ENGINEERING & MANPOWER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI408/2016

Because the plaintiff wilfully refused an early sanctioned payment, engaged in egregious exaggeration and dishonesty that wasted court, legal aid and defendants' resources, the court varied the costs order: awarded defendants costs on indemnity basis with certificates for two counsel, ordered enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate on costs paid between 24 August 2019 and 22 December 2020 (per DLA agreement) and 10% above judgment rate on costs paid since 23 December 2020, and ordered payment out of the sanctioned payment; costs of the application payable by the plaintiff on indemnity bas…
2 Sept 2021

COLMAT CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING CO LTD v. MINMETALS CONDO (HONG KONG) ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT36/2018

The Court corrected identified numerical slips in the Judgment to reflect its manifest intention (allowing HK$14,950 at para 117; replacing HK$87,328.25 with HK$324,017.50 at para 160; replacing HK$837,534.89 with HK$920,836.16 at para 176), refused to re-open matters beyond Order 20 rule 11 (eg CC06), and granted the Defendant enhanced interest and costs due to its sanctioned offer: interest on the judgment at prime+1% p.a. from 4 June 2018 to 13 November 2020 and at 2% above judgment rate from 13 November 2020 to 26 July 2021; costs ordered so Plaintiff pays 50% of Defendant's costs up to 1…
21 Apr 2021

ZHANGJIAGANG BOYA TRADING CO., LTD v. ASD (HK) LTD (trading as CHEUNG WING GARMENTS CO)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1052
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2440/2016

It was not unjust to vary the Interest Order Nisi and Costs Order Nisi in light of the sanctioned payment given its timing and size relative to the judgment sums; interest under section 48 is disallowed from the Latest Date to the date of judgment after accounting for counterclaim sums, and the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs incurred from the Latest Date on an indemnity basis with interest at 2% above judgment rate; defendant to have costs of the variation application to be taxed if not agreed.
15 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKDC 293
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2016/2015

The notice of sanctioned payment dated 23 May 2016 complied with Order 22 Rule 8 and was valid on its own; accordingly Order 22 Rule 23 applies because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment better than that sanctioned payment, but due to the defendant's unreasonable and opportunistic contesting of liability the court declined indemnity costs and instead ordered that plaintiff recover costs up to 20 June 2016 on a party and party basis and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs incurred after 20 June 2016 on a party and party basis, with enhanced interest at 1% above judgment rate on…