Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 62 rule 5

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

MAURIZIO DE GASPERIS AND ANOTHER v. SHANGHAI TANG INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1450/2020

The court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in settlement negotiations by rigidly insisting on US$150,000 without legal or evidential basis and failing to respond to an improved Calderbank offer; accordingly the order nisi was varied to award indemnity costs from 27 August 2024 and to require plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs (with specified temporal apportionment); the defendants' costs of the summons were assessed at HK$84,729 and HK$50,000 paid into court was ordered released to defendants.
6 Apr 2022

CHEUNG YUK YING ENGRACIA v. MACGREGOR ISABELLA

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 901
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2870/2017

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because, given the timing of the offer (made on Day 1 while the Plaintiff was giving evidence) and the personal, non-commercial nature of the dispute, it was not reasonable to expect acceptance at that stage; in the exercise of its discretion the judge held the offer did not justify awarding costs from Day 2 onwards and confirmed no order as to costs, while declining to order costs for the application itself.
31 Mar 2022

HUI TUNG v. WORLD WIN CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 155
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ428/2021

Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 3 because the transcript showed the plaintiff had proposed costs in the cause at the hearing and the court failed to give that submission due weight, giving the defendant a reasonable prospect of success on that point; Grounds 1 and 2 lacked reasonable prospects and leave was refused; costs of the leave application ordered to be in the cause of the appeal.
25 Jan 2022

TAN WAI KEE v. MARSPAN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1852/2020

CS Credit's success on the bona fide purchaser defence defeated Far East's and CIE's claim against it entirely; the plaintiffs therefore wholly failed as against CS Credit and costs follow the event. The estoppel issue was narrow and did not consume significant trial time or costs, so no apportionment was warranted; the costs order nisi was made absolute.
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…
16 Apr 2019

LAM YIN POK BOSCO, a minor by LAM PO YEE, his mother and next friend v. DR. CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR. CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI369/2010

While it is arguable that Order 22 could apply to infants/MIPs, the existing Hong Kong authority treats Order 22 as inapplicable to infants and MIPs; where Order 22 does not apply the court must and may take payments into court into account under Order 62 r.5 when exercising its costs discretion; accordingly the court may make adverse costs orders or no order as to costs for periods after payments into court as appropriate, subject to the court’s discretion and circumstances of the case; the specific dispute was resolved by consent orders approved by the court.
14 Mar 2016

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3207/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal was not satisfied the Lands Tribunal committed any error in principle or made a plainly wrong decision; the Tribunal was within its discretion to disallow costs relating to valuation approaches it found unreliable or unreasonably used, and the intended appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success.
15 May 2015

NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG

Citation

NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI655/2015

The plaintiff's summons was premature because the defendant had provided constructive pre-action replies and had disclosed the police statements within the timeframe contemplated by Practice Direction 18.1; the defendant's solicitors acted promptly and did not withhold documents, therefore costs of the plaintiff's summons are payable by the plaintiff, but not on an indemnity basis as the plaintiff's conduct was not utterly unreasonable.
29 Aug 2014

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH

Citation

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2013

The court exercised its discretion under Order 62 rule 5 to vary the costs order nisi by depriving the successful defendant (the Bank) of 40% of its costs below because the Bank had failed on a substantial line of defence (reimbursement authorisation) even though the argument was reasonably advanced; it was inappropriate to order the Bank to pay the plaintiff's costs in full but proportionate reduction was warranted; costs of the appeal remain as ordered; Bank to pay 50% of plaintiff's costs of the variation application.
3 Oct 2013

DE CHANG FULFILMENT LTD v. MANLEY TOYS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DE CHANG FULFILMENT LTD v. MANLEY TOYS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1159/2009

The court exercised its discretion starting from the statutory presumption in Order 62 r 3(6) and concluded there were insufficient grounds to depart from that presumption; the costs order nisi was varied in the defendants' favor so that the plaintiff must pay the costs of proving the non-admitted documents and the defendants' application costs, and the plaintiff's application for indemnity costs was dismissed.