Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 42 rule 5b(6)

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2015

The 1st Order Nisi became absolute on 17 August 2015 under Order 42 r5B(6) and could not be varied; the plaintiff only sought to vary the 2nd Order Nisi and failed to identify exceptional circumstances to displace the normal rule that costs follow the event, so the application to vary the 2nd Order Nisi failed; written submissions could not substitute for a proper summons; consequently both summonses were dismissed and costs ordered accordingly.
16 Nov 2012

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. IMPERIAL CHARITY HALL MEDICINES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. IMPERIAL CHARITY HALL MEDICINES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA793/2012

Costs were ordered to be in the cause because adding the 2nd defendant caused no prejudice to the 1st defendant, there was no evidence of deliberate concealment by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's explanation was accepted as proportionate, and any amendment-related costs could be sought separately; consequently the registrar awarded assessed costs of HKD 2,000 to the plaintiff to be paid by the 1st defendant within 14 days and made the order nisi absolute subject to variation under Order 42 rule 5B(6).
8 Aug 2012

YEUNG GA WAI formerly known as YEUNG PUI WAH v. LAU MING SHUM

Citation

YEUNG GA WAI formerly known as YEUNG PUI WAH v. LAU MING SHUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA798/2004

Applying the broad‑brush approach the Registrar allowed reductions to the claimed items (cutting communication to 2 hours, perusal to 3.5 hours and disallowing counsel's fee) and assessed the plaintiff's costs at $50,000.00, ordering the defendant to pay that sum within 14 days from 22 August 2012 and making the order nisi under Order 42 rule 5B(6).
8 Jun 2006

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV137/2002

The court confirmed it has jurisdiction (following Ma Wan Farming Ltd) to extend the 14‑day period under Order 3 r 5 and inherent jurisdiction, but dismissed the defendant's application because the delay was inadequately explained and there was no substantive merit to vary the costs order; accordingly the application to extend time and vary the costs nisi was refused.
23 Jun 1998

MA WAN FARMING LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER

Citation

MA WAN FARMING LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV182/1997

The court held it had jurisdiction to extend time under the procedural rules and inherent jurisdiction, extended time to permit the appellant's application, but refused the variation and made the order nisi as to costs absolute because the appellant failed to establish both elements needed to engage Article 10; costs were ordered to follow the event and payable by the appellant to the respondents.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG LO COURT v. TSUI WAI YIP

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. IMPERIAL CHARITY HALL MEDICINES LTD AND ANOTHER

YEUNG GA WAI formerly known as YEUNG PUI WAH v. LAU MING SHUM

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD

MA WAN FARMING LTD v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER