13 Sept 2023
Costs were ordered to follow the event; the respondent's submissions did not justify either no order or a 90% reduction; the court made targeted reductions to specific billable hours and ordered the respondent to pay the complainant's costs summarily assessed at $142,506.
7 Jul 2022
O.22 r.23 applied because the plaintiff did not obtain a judgment better than the sanctioned payment; it was not unjust to apply r.23 on these facts. Costs were ordered: party-and-party up to 14 April 2020 and indemnity costs from 15 April 2020 to 17 November 2021 with interest on those costs at 6% p.a.; the plaintiff's summons was dismissed and the plaintiff ordered to pay costs of both summons on an indemnity basis if not agreed.
7 Jul 2021
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants for the applications and, having regard to the defendants' statements of costs and the plaintiff's failure to object within 14 days, allowed $33,000 for the 1st defendant and $3,100 each for the 2nd and 3rd defendants as reasonable sums to be recovered from the plaintiff.
18 Sept 2017
The court held that there is no principled basis to deny respondents an order for costs simply because the appellant was adjudicated bankrupt and the trustee declined to prosecute; costs should be ordered against the appellant and, if taxed upon leave from the bankruptcy court, will be provable debts; accordingly the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed if leave is obtained, and no costs order was made between the Official Receiver and the respondents.
2 Dec 2015
The court took a global approach to the bill of costs and assessed the respondent's costs at HK$50,000, ordering the applicant to pay those costs forthwith.
8 Mar 2011
The proceedings were wholly unjustified because plaintiffs' solicitors commenced the action without clarifying their authority and despite the defendant's readiness to provide accounts; accordingly plaintiffs must personally pay the defendant's costs, and the solicitors must be given the required opportunity to show cause as to why a wasted costs order should not be made against them.
2 May 2003
The magistrate lawfully exercised his discretion under Cap. 492 in refusing to order costs because he concluded the appellant had brought suspicion upon himself; an appellate court will not interfere with such a discretionary decision absent clear abuse of power.
9 Feb 1990
The Court extended time to seek leave, received new evidence that the bail deposit was a loan and that the appellant was impecunious, held the trial judge erred by failing to inquire into the accused's means before ordering costs, and therefore allowed the appeal and quashed the HK$50,000 costs order.