Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Recoverability of costs

  • 8 Oct 2020

    LEE SEE WOO v. CHU HONG PONG

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2569
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2537/2018

    The action was struck out because the malicious prosecution claim failed as a matter of law and pleading: the principal heads of loss claimed were either irrecoverable (additional legal costs awarded in prior proceedings) or plainly not caused by the alleged malicious prosecution (loss of shares and related restoration costs stemmed from earlier transfers independent of the HCMP proceedings); the abuse of process claim failed for lack of a pleaded predominant extraneous purpose and for lack of viable loss causation; the court declined to make an Order 14A determination on the emergent issue o…

  • 30 Oct 2008

    HEATHER ANNE VOCE v. THE HENLEY GROUP LTD

    Citation
    HEATHER ANNE VOCE v. THE HENLEY GROUP LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1370/2006

    Costs attributable to the registered foreign lawyer Mr Ian Johnston were recoverable because he was closely supervised such that he was not providing legal services in breach of Rule 12 or section 50, and, in any event, a breach of Rule 12 would not automatically prevent recovery of those costs; accordingly the Plaintiff must pay the Defendant's costs of the hearing subject to quantified reductions for excess or duplicated items.

  • 14 Aug 1974

    ROBERT CHAN v. GILBERT HO KWOK TSUI AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ROBERT CHAN v. GILBERT HO KWOK TSUI AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP254/1973

    The court held that costs (including auctioneers' and advertisement fees) properly incurred in relation to the mortgage are recoverable even if not specified in the mortgage deed; tender of a lesser sum is not payment; encashment of a part payment cheque did not constitute acceptance of the lesser payment or an undertaking to forgo the balance; therefore the respondents were entitled to demand the outstanding $6,252 and the summons for its repayment was dismissed.