Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 62 rhc

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2024

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF SO CHING WAN v. ASSEN LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4475/2002

Applying O62 r28(4A) the Master held the Section A costs were to be taxed on indemnity basis so doubts resolve for the receiving party; SL and NK, as professional liquidators, demonstrated pecuniary loss and were entitled to above-ordinary rates though moderated by litigant-in-person rules; the Master upheld the previously allowed hourly rates ($4,000 indemnity, $3,600 party-and-party) and the time allowances after item-by-item review, rejected the grounds that lack of leave/sanction or litigant-in-person status defeated recovery, and dismissed the paying party's review in full, awarding cost…
26 Mar 2021

KRYSTINA ROBERTSON AND GARY MCLEAN, THE EXECUTORS OF COLIN EDMUND ROBERTSON, DECEASED v. LAM WING SANG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI519/2017

On broad-brush summary assessment applying the necessary-or-proper test and proportionality, the court allowed specified reductions and apportionments to items claimed by defendant, found CH's involvement justified, apportioned hearing time and liaison time between CH and JT, allowed counsel an apportioned brief fee of $24,000, and assessed the defendant's recoverable costs at HKD 56,634.00.
3 Oct 2019

LEE GOO LYNETTE SIU YIN AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI MING DAISY in her capacity as executor of the estate of LI SING KUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1836/2017

The court clarified it did not intend to order the remainder (55%) of the plaintiffs' costs to be paid out of the estate; the prior costs orders stand on the basis of hostile litigation and the court exercised its discretion under Order 62; the court made a supplementary order that the costs ordered to be paid by D1 and by D2/D3 be taxed and payable forthwith; no order as to costs of the Further Submissions was made.
27 Jan 2017

LAM AND LAI SOLICITORS v. HO CHUN YAN ALBERT

Citation

LAM AND LAI SOLICITORS v. HO CHUN YAN ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP555/2015

The Master found the 64 items were not of an unreasonable amount nor unreasonably incurred because the proceedings were extremely complex, urgent and of high public importance, justifying participation of two fee earners; there was no evidence the defendant had imposed a cost limit or withheld approval, so the review application was dismissed.
22 Apr 2016

WONG YIM MAN ANTHEA v. WONG HO MING FELIX

Citation

WONG YIM MAN ANTHEA v. WONG HO MING FELIX
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA352/2011

The Offer was not a sanctioned offer under O.22 because its express term as to costs ('no order as to costs') irreconcilably conflicted with the costs consequences that O.22 r.20 confers upon a timely acceptance; accordingly the defendant's application to vary the costs order to indemnity costs and enhanced interest was dismissed and the Order Nisi was made absolute. Even treated as a Calderbank offer, the court exercised its discretion not to order indemnity costs or enhanced interest given the defendant's conduct and the reasonable decision of the plaintiff to proceed to trial.
20 Nov 2015

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA369/2004

The tribunal did not err in law in varying the costs order; CLP had no reasonable prospect of success on any ground advanced because its approach 2 and approach 3 (and CB usage in approach 2) were found unreliable, inappropriate and to have materially increased costs; the unreasonableness of the respondent's WACC approach did not justify CLP advancing inappropriate alternatives; difficulties of taxation did not outweigh entitlement to correct costs apportionment; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded against CLP.
3 Feb 2015

WONG PAK SUM v. HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD

Citation

WONG PAK SUM v. HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2946/2013

Costs were to be assessed on a broad-brush summary basis: 1st and 3rd Costs Orders on party-and-party basis allowing only necessary and reasonable items; 2nd Costs Order on indemnity basis allowing all costs except those unreasonable; specific items (travel, routine manual filing, excessive solicitor time and duplicate work) are not recoverable or are to be discounted; applying proportionality the assessed sums are $30,000 (1st), $40,000 (2nd, indemnity) and $10,000 (3rd), payable forthwith.
12 Aug 2014

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (a firm of solicitors)

Citation

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (a firm of solicitors)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1325/2011

The court exercised its discretion on costs and, having found the Hind Parties acted reasonably and obtained most of the Class A discovery while KLG had not acted so unreasonably as to warrant depriving the Hind Parties of costs, varied the Order Nisi so that KLG pays 90% of the Hind Parties' costs of the 1st SD Summons (including the costs variation hearing); all other orders remain final.
20 Oct 2006

POON TING CHAU v. WONG KWOK CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

POON TING CHAU v. WONG KWOK CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2903/2004

The ex parte Examination Orders and Substituted Service Orders were lawfully made under the Rules of the High Court; omissions relied on by the plaintiff were not material to the exercise of discretion, substituted service was justified on affidavit evidence of evasion/unavailability, the errors were clerical and amendable, failure to personally serve amended orders did not render them void, and therefore the plaintiff's applications to set aside the orders lacked merit; appeals dismissed and costs awarded.
12 Jul 2000

CHOY BING WING t/a BING CHOY & ASSOCIATES v. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.

Citation

CHOY BING WING t/a BING CHOY & ASSOCIATES v. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/1998

The Master affirmed the original taxation because the taxed hourly rate for the litigant in person was supported by the plaintiff's prior billing history adjusted by an accepted 8% annual inflation rate to an average of HK$1,295; speculative loss of business was too remote and not recoverable; the experts rate of HK$2,000 was reasonable given his engineering experience and additional barrister status, and the receiving party failed to discharge the burden of proof for higher rates.