Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-action protocol

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTD v. TSANG YEUK KWAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA195/2025

The New Evidence was inadmissible because it was not genuinely newly arisen after the Order, D and his Singapore advisers had prior knowledge (April Letter), there was unjustified delay and inequitable conduct in withholding the materials, exclusion did not amount to a travesty of justice, and consequently the Stay Summons lacked foundation because D failed to identify an available Singapore forum clearly more appropriate and did not discharge the heavy burden for an FNC stay.
19 Jan 2024

LI JIE v. HONG KONG AIRPORT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 111
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI209/2022

The judge upheld the Master's decision: the plaintiff established a 'good reason' for extension—an innocent clerical mistake plausibly caused by the secretary's post-LASIK impaired vision—and on balance of hardship the interest of justice required renewal; the defendant's appeal was dismissed with costs, and technical defects could be cured by retrospective extension if necessary.
13 Apr 2016

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 master correctly found the defendant had disclosed the police statements prior to the plaintiff's summons, the summons was therefore premature and unnecessary, and the master's costs order was not unreasonable or legally flawed; the appeal is dismissed and costs follow the event.
14 Oct 2015

NG YEE PING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO 4 KAI CHIU ROAD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG YEE PING v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF NO 4 KAI CHIU ROAD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI122/2014

The court refused to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event: the plaintiff failed to show special circumstances to deny costs because she had a duty to identify the correct defendant and her explanations for failing to locate the land search were unpersuasive; accordingly leave to discontinue was granted but the plaintiff must pay the 1st defendant's costs up to the date of the order.
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.
12 Sept 2014

AU FO KIU v. LIU KWOK KEI

Citation

AU FO KIU v. LIU KWOK KEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI417/2014

Paragraph 1A applies so scale costs under the Second Schedule normally apply to Order 13A judgments; the Court retains a discretion under Order 62 r 32(4) to order taxation but that discretion should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances; compliance with PD 18.1 or pre-action work does not automatically qualify as exceptional and on the facts no exceptional circumstances existed; therefore scale costs totalling HKD 11,045 awarded for costs of liability.
4 Jul 2013

LAU TSZ HUNG RINGO v. FIRST REFRIGERATION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

LAU TSZ HUNG RINGO v. FIRST REFRIGERATION ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1166/2013

The affirmation provided an adequate basis for pre-action discovery because it made it reasonable to suspect a Principal Contractor and that the defendant was the proper party to identify relevant documents; however, the defendant's conduct was at most dilatory and they promptly acknowledged service and disclosed documents the same day, so the normal costs rule applied: no order as to costs of the proceedings, but the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the hearing to be summarily assessed and the plaintiff's own costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
6 Feb 2012

TANG TAK PING v. KAI SHING CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

TANG TAK PING v. KAI SHING CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI539/2011

The court exercised its case management discretion to grant leave for psychiatric expert evidence because the privately obtained report (Dr Leo Chiu) established a prima facie need; however the privately instructed psychiatrist was disqualified from acting as the single joint expert; the parties were directed to jointly instruct a single joint psychiatric expert (Dr Chung Si Yuen) and specific costs orders were made reflecting the plaintiff's breach of PD18.1 and the defendants' partial success.
29 Mar 2001

HO WAI LEUNG v. WAN CHI KUEN

Citation

HO WAI LEUNG v. WAN CHI KUEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI11/2001

It was reasonable for the plaintiff to litigate in the District Court given the nature of the personal injury claim, the absence of pre-action responses and the availability of legal representation; consequently the court exercised its discretion under section 53 and relevant Rules to award the plaintiff his costs of the action, including costs of the summons, on the District Court scale.