Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Senior counsel certificate

  • 26 Mar 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳馳強

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1211
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC241/2023

    The judge awarded trial costs because, on review of the evidence and trial record, the defendant's actions did not constitute positive reasons to deny costs or amount to self-created suspicion that misled the prosecution; objective materials (CCTV, phone records) undermined the complainant's evidence and the jury's inability to convict followed by the prosecution offering no evidence justified awarding costs. The application for two senior counsel certificates was refused because the case was not sufficiently complex or voluminous to require two senior counsel.

  • 22 Apr 2013

    RE LOO CHE CHIN

    Citation
    RE LOO CHE CHIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCA3131/2011

    The opposition by Clive was hostile and therefore falls within the category where costs are payable personally by the losing beneficiary; however, because Janet had pursued and later abandoned a separate guarantee application, her recoverable costs are reduced by 10%; the engagement of two counsel is not justified but a certificate for senior counsel is warranted; accordingly Clive must pay 90% of Janet's costs on a party and party basis, taxed if not agreed.

  • 6 Feb 2007

    張新霖 v. 黎錦文及另十一人

    Citation
    張新霖 v. 黎錦文及另十一人
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV252/2004

    The Master dismissed the review: on party-and-party taxation only costs necessarily or properly incurred are recoverable; Mr Neoh's instruction was unnecessary and a luxury for the narrow interlocutory appeal and his disbursements and profit costs were therefore excluded (or would be taxed down as excessive); two counsel certificate was appropriately applied to Mr Chong and Mr Leung (Mr Leung's gratuitous status did not preclude recognition of his role), and no fraudulent conduct by Defendants' solicitors was found requiring further inquiry.