Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 22 rule 24

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2025

CHU CHEUNG CHEUNG AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PROVIDENT CENTRE No 21-53 WHARF ROAD, NORTH POINT, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 523
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ244/2021

Plaintiffs plainly obtained a judgment greater than their sanctioned offer and the defendants' explanations (no breakdown, missing supplemental materials, involvement of 4th defendant) did not render enforcement unjust. Accordingly the court varied the costs order: indemnity costs and enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate apply after 11 September 2023, with party-and-party costs up to 11 September 2023 and indemnity thereafter; interest on specified sums follows the staged rates ordered.
14 Jul 2023

FONG KIN WA v. LI HAU YI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2235/2019

It was not unjust to make the orders under O.22 r.24; costs were varied so that costs up to and including 18 August 2020 are party-and-party and costs from 19 August 2020 are on an indemnity basis, and enhanced pre-judgment interest was awarded at HSBC prime rate plus 3% p.a. from 19 August 2020 to date of judgment and judgment rate thereafter; enhanced post-judgment interest on costs was refused.
23 Nov 2021

AMERICHIP INC v. ZHU HONGLING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1644/2016

Given the sanctioned offers, timing of offers, the 1st Defendant's payment into court and findings of lack of good faith, it was not unjust to make orders under Order 22 rule 24(4) but a full award of the enhanced interest sought was excessive; the court ordered indemnity costs from 21 March 2018 and allowed enhanced interest at 1% above judgment rate from 21 March 2018 to judgment and interest on costs at half that enhanced rate.
30 Jun 2021

CONVERGE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. MOUNT KELLY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT72/2018

The court exercised its discretion under Order 22 rule 24 to award enhanced interest at 5% above judgment rate from 29 June 2019 because the defendant failed to respond to the plaintiff's first sanctioned offer, the defence and counterclaim lacked evidential basis and the defendant's conduct justified the sanctions; the court also awarded interest for earlier and later periods at the specified rates and interest on costs at half the enhanced rate.
30 Sept 2020

CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 850
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC883/2015

The Offer Letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; consequently O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be imposed. The earlier judgment's preference for the respondent's orthopaedic expert was upheld, so the original costs order nisi stands and the application to vary it is dismissed.
10 Jan 2019

ARNOLD ROBERT LTD v. GLORIOUS MOTORS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 91
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA950/2014

Rule 24 was engaged because the plaintiff obtained a judgment more advantageous than the sanctioned offer and it was not unjust to apply rule 24; accordingly the court varied its earlier orders by enhancing interest on the judgment sum to 4% above the judgment rate from 15 April 2015, awarding costs before that date on a party‑to‑party District Court scale and costs on/after that date on an indemnity District Court scale, with specified interest on those costs, and awarding costs of the application to the plaintiff.
12 Jun 2018

CHOW HOW YEEN MARGARET AND OTHERS v. WEX PHARMACEUTICALS INC AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 344
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/2017

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the CP representation was a fraudulent misrepresentation that induced the Plaintiffs to purchase shares; it dismissed the appeal against liability and costs but held the trial judge erred in principle by awarding pre-judgment interest at judgment (Canadian) rates and substituted Hong Kong prime rate plus 1% as the appropriate pre-judgment rate given the money was paid in Hong Kong; the court affirmed the trial judge's imposition of indemnity costs and enhanced interest under Order 22 r24 and ordered costs of the appeal against the Defe…
30 Oct 2015

KBC BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS

Citation

KBC BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV282/2012

The motion for leave was dismissed because the questions raised did not amount to matters of great general or public importance; the Court properly applied Order 22 Rule 24 by considering quantum alongside other facts and concluded the sanctioned offer was genuine on the facts, and s 22(1)(b) CFAO was not satisfied.
11 Aug 2015

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD

Citation

A I D LTD v. NANYANG BROTHERS TOBACCO CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1559/2013

Having considered the timing and terms of the sanctioned offers, the information available to the defendant and the parties' conduct, the court concluded it was not unjust to impose the sanctions. The court awarded enhanced interest at 3% above judgment rate and indemnity costs from the expiry dates of the respective sanctioned offers: from 18 March 2014 for DCCJ 1559/2013 and from 1 November 2014 for DCCJ 876/2014; costs of the summons ordered on a nisi indemnity basis.