Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Orders nisi

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2026

CHEN TAOCHENG v. QIN XIAOJIAN, the sole administrator of the estate of CHAN WAI HING ALEXANDER, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 66
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP142/2025

An indemnity costs order was appropriate because the Widow withdrew an earlier affirmation and thereby gave rise to a strong inference that the Loan Agreement and Settlement Agreement were not genuine and were used to transfer estate assets out of reach of beneficiaries; the Widow persisted unreasonably in resisting the proceedings, causing avoidable costs, and therefore paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Order Nisi were varied to impose indemnity costs against Qin Xiao Jian and to maintain party and party costs against Chan Kwun Shing as specified; costs of the Variation Summons were ordered to b…
11 Jan 2024

CHINA CITY CONSTRUCTION (INTERNATIONAL) CO, LTD (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) v. CHAMP PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW30/2022

The application for summary assessment was dismissed because the costs orders were made on nisi and no application under O 42 r 5B was made within 14 days, rendering the Court functus; additionally the complexity and overlapping nature of the costs required taxation and apportionment rather than summary assessment.
17 May 2022

LYYC v. CHL and CSMS, the Executrices of the Estate of CGSK also known as CSKG, Deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP683/2021

The court held that a party may apply for a further interim order under section 7 Cap 481 notwithstanding an earlier consent order providing interim litigation funding; section 7 is wide enough to permit an interim lump sum; the applicant's immediate need and merits threshold were not shown to have diminished since the earlier interim order; accordingly a further interim lump sum for litigation funding was granted in part (HKD 3,350,000) with ancillary costs directions, and the court confirmed it had no power to vary or dismiss the Consent Order under Cap 481 s8.
4 Jun 2020

FUNG TIN YAU (IN HIS OWN CAPACITY AND SUING AS A SHAREHOLDER OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AND ON BEHALF OF MAXFORTUNE TRADING LTD AS SHAREHOLDER OF SAMDOR CO LTD) v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1291/2018

The court varied the costs orders nisi: it assessed and ordered Total Appeal Costs (including reserved Directions Hearing costs) to be summarily assessed and fixed at HK$700,000 payable within 14 days; it ordered costs of the Direction Summons to be in the cause; and it summarily assessed the Costs Summons at HK$5,000 to be set off against the Petitioner's award, while leaving apportionment among respondents to the parties and granting a certificate for two counsel except for the hearing on 20 May 2019.
14 May 2018

RE ZHENG DUNQIAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 955
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3929/2017

The debtor failed to establish any bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: his allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, non est factum, set-off and illegality were unparticularised, contradicted by his position as an insider and documentary evidence, and therefore the personal guarantee and debt are enforceable; bankruptcy order and costs follow.
25 May 2012

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI ENTERPRISES CO LTD

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI ENTERPRISES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA886/2007

Because both sides engaged in serious misconduct and fabrication in HCA1957/2005 the court varied the costs order nisi to make no order as to costs between the parties; indemnity costs were awarded against BIC in HCA714/2007 because BIC invented an untenable defence amounting to an affront to the court; indemnity costs were refused in HCA886/2007 as no exceptional features justified them; the application to make Mr Lee personally liable failed for procedural (failure to join and hear him) and substantive reasons (lack of investigation into control/funding); set off against FBC's costs was ref…
22 Jan 2010

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP129/2007

The court made the orders nisi absolute because the Judgment Debtor failed to demonstrate a sufficient reason to resist making them absolute, and directed that costs be taxed if not agreed.
22 Jan 2010

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE HONG KONG SAR v. CHOY BING WING

Citation

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE HONG KONG SAR v. CHOY BING WING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2005

The judge concluded that the circumstances justified making the orders nisi absolute because the judgment debtor had not produced a basis to prevent that outcome; accordingly the orders nisi were made absolute and costs were to be taxed if not agreed.
5 Aug 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. ERNST & YOUNG (a Hong Kong firm)

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. ERNST & YOUNG (a Hong Kong firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL29/2004

The court found the plaintiff to be the primarily successful party on the principal discovery summons and apportioned costs accordingly rather than ordering costs in the cause; the appropriate apportionment was 75% of the plaintiff's costs for that application, to be taxed if not agreed, while confirming order nisi (costs follow event) for the other contested summonses and ordering the 30 July 2009 case management hearing costs to be in the cause.
12 May 2006

LI LAI FUN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG YIU CHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

LI LAI FUN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG YIU CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV253/2005

By majority the court exercised its discretion on costs to confirm the costs order for the proceedings below but made no order as to costs for the appeal or the application to vary; the justification was that although the Plaintiffs obtained an increase on appeal they still recovered less than the earlier payment into court and did not completely succeed on their appeal, so fairness required that each side bear their own costs of the appeal and the application.