Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reservation of costs

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2025

TARGET INSURANCE COMPANY LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. NERICO BROTHERS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV223/2022

The Court varied the Costs Order to make no order as to the costs of the application for indemnity costs because the petitioner failed to address the basis of taxation as directed; the refusal to award indemnity costs resulted from that failure rather than from the Company’s submissions, and fairness therefore required no order as to those specific costs. Costs of the Variation Summons were also ordered to be no order given the petitioner’s partial success coupled with its procedural default.
11 Dec 2019

YOICHI KUGA v. SARONIC HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1180/2018

Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of the adjournment application on a party and party basis with a certificate for one Counsel; plaintiff granted costs of the Hearing with a certificate for two Counsel, both to be taxed if not agreed; indemnity costs refused for the adjournment application; no order as to costs for the applications to adduce further evidence; costs of the amended originating summons reserved save for the Hearing costs; plaintiff to pay costs of its own summons to amend the originating summons (no dispute).
19 Mar 2010

FG HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATES LLC v. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO AND OTHERS

Citation

FG HEMISPHERE ASSOCIATES LLC v. DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV373/2008

The Court held that the costs of the appeals and respondent notices should be ordered against the defendants but should not include the Secretary for Justice because the Secretary's intervention was made in the public interest and did not attract a costs order; immediate taxation of the appeals' costs was deferred pending determination of further appeals to the Court of Final Appeal and the inquiry at first instance, and the costs of the originating summons and defendants' summonses were to remain reserved.
10 May 2006

TED OHYA v. ABDO A. OSMAN

Citation

TED OHYA v. ABDO A. OSMAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4042/2005

The court refused the defendant's application for adjournment because the statutory stay had expired, the defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence that his health prevented him from conducting the hearing or that he was impecunious, and further delay would prejudice the plaintiff's ability to execute the judgment.
5 Nov 2002

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON COLLEGE LTD. v. YIU MAN HAU, ALFRED AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4273/2001

The court reserved the question of costs on the application to discharge the interim injunction to be determined at the conclusion of the trial when factual findings will permit appropriate decisions on indemnity or apportionment; the 1st defendant's costs on the application are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations; and the 1st defendant's summons for an inquiry as to damages was adjourned sine die pending trial.
28 Jul 2000

TRUTHFUL FINANCE CO. LTD. v. EXCEL TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

TRUTHFUL FINANCE CO. LTD. v. EXCEL TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6673/2000

The court continued the ex parte Mareva injunction against the 1st and 2nd Defendants until trial or further order because the defendants, while disputing the allegations, agreed not to oppose continuation without admission of liability; costs were reserved due to disagreement over necessity of the injunction.
9 Jan 1998

PREMIER BEARING AND EQUIPMENT LTD v. IFB INTERNATIONAL FREIGHTBRIDGE (CHINA) LTD

Citation

PREMIER BEARING AND EQUIPMENT LTD v. IFB INTERNATIONAL FREIGHTBRIDGE (CHINA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL355/1996

The court held that although the defendant's position had merit given the unusual counsel-to-counsel misunderstanding and integrity of counsel, the original order nisi was harsh; accordingly the court varied the order nisi to direct that the costs of and occasioned by the application be the plaintiff's costs in the cause and certified the matter as fit for Counsel rather than reserving costs.
8 Nov 1989

ATTORNEY CENERAL v. LEUNG KWOK WAH

Citation

ATTORNEY CENERAL v. LEUNG KWOK WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA730/1989

Where the original trial magistrate made no effective order under s.20 regarding costs, a magistrate who becomes seised of the matter implicitly adjourns under s.20(1) and has jurisdiction to award costs under s.20(2); the Principal Magistrate did not misexercise his discretion in awarding HK$3,000 to compensate the respondent for costs incurred due to prosecution default, and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Aug 1980

SIU KING CHEUNG HING YIP CO LTD AND OTHERS v. MALAYSIA BORNEO FINANCE CORPORATION (M) BERHAD

Citation

SIU KING CHEUNG HING YIP CO LTD AND OTHERS v. MALAYSIA BORNEO FINANCE CORPORATION (M) BERHAD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV57/1980

The Court of Appeal held the judge lacked jurisdiction to order the appellants to pay into court and to impose the participation prohibition sanction; the successful parties were entitled to their costs of the strike‑out applications, and the question who should pay (company, appellants, or both and in what proportions) should be reserved; leave to appeal was not required under s.14(3)(c) in the circumstances.