Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

H.K.F.S. FUND LTD v. 羅芷澄 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 507
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3030/2023

The Master erred by applying the general 'bound to win' presumption without adequately recognising that settlement returning the full trust funds made the plaintiff the 'effective winner' and, given unresolved factual discrepancies at an early interlocutory stage, the Master was not in a position to conclude the plaintiff could not have succeeded; accordingly no order as to costs for the action (including the joinder summons) should be made, and the Master's orders for party/party and indemnity costs were set aside in part, with a nisi order for appeal costs against D1–D4.
11 Dec 2025

LAI YAU FOON v. WONG TIN CHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1944
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP46/2021

The court found the 3rd Defendant breached Clause 4 by failing to deliver vacant possession; the defence of total waiver failed for lack of clear and unequivocal representation and inconsistent evidence; Clause 22 need not be finally determined because breach of Clause 4 sufficed; damages were assessed by reference to the difference between the contract price and the amount received under the settlement with the 1st Defendant (HK$450,000); the 3rd and 4th Defendants, having entered the Agreement together, are jointly liable, and the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff against them accord…
5 Dec 2025

W.M. CONTRACTOR LTD formerly known as W.M. FOUNDATION COMPANY LTD v. CHAN SIU HUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6114
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2022

No good reason was shown to depart from the starting point that the discontinuing party bears costs. No binding settlement with the Defendant had been proved; the second cause overlapped and was settled in HCCT17; the remaining confidential information claim was demurrable because the impugned documents post-dated the Defendant's employment and thus he owed no duty qua employee. Accordingly the action was discontinued with an order that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs to be assessed on a gross sum basis.
21 Mar 2025

曹連英對禤氏律師行

Citation

[2025] HKDC 481
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4635/2023

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the alleged non‑service and procedural unfairness were not supported by the record, the allegations of solicitor misconduct were unsupported by evidence considered in the earlier judgment, and the settlement occurred with the applicant's consent; accordingly there was no justification to grant an oral hearing under s63A.
14 Mar 2025

RAO SUPING v. TRIBEST HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 459
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2801/2023

The summons was dismissed because it was unilateral and misconceived: there was no affidavit or evidential basis showing the defendant had agreed to the proposed settlement or costs, payment by an insurer did not justify directing the defendant to pay, and costs orders are discretionary — accordingly no order for costs was made against the unrepresented and absent defendant.
22 Jul 2024

LAW CHUNG TAI v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI174/2021

The plaintiff's letter did not satisfy Order 22 rule 5(7) and therefore was not a valid sanctioned offer; the exclusionary rule in Order 62 rule 5(1)(d) requires the court to disregard the Calderbank offer for costs purposes; the parties' common mistaken belief cannot disapply that exclusion; the facts did not demonstrate conduct warranting indemnity costs; accordingly the 2nd Defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the action including the aborted trial on a party and party basis, and specific apportionments are ordered for the summonses.
28 Feb 2024

E & P GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO) v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

Although the court recognised initial SFC involvement and some suspicious features, the plaintiff failed to reassess the merits after the defendants' Calderbank offer of 25 June 2012 and ignored settlement communications, thereby prolonging the proceedings; accordingly the costs order nisi was set aside and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1st and 2nd Defendants' costs incurred after 9 July 2012 (14 days after the Calderbank offer) with certificate for counsel, while otherwise there would be no order as to costs; additionally the plaintiff must pay two-thirds of the 1st and 2nd Defendants…
30 Aug 2023

SUNDARI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of the DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1212
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3805/2021

The plaintiff did not have a reasonable prospect of recovering more than HK$75,000 at the time of issuing proceedings because a reasonable allowance (at least 6–8 weeks/49 days) should be deducted from the 92‑day detention, searches/handcuffing would yield at most nominal damages, and the settlement of HK$18,000 reinforced the lack of prospect; therefore costs are to be taxed at a level similar to actions begun in the Small Claims Tribunal.
3 Aug 2023

賴玫霞對衞達保安有限公司

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA17/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to produce the hearing transcript or sufficient evidence to show the settlement was not voluntary and the appropriate remedy for an alleged involuntary settlement is to commence civil proceedings to set it aside.
25 Jul 2023

LEUNG LING YAN EVA 對 UNI-CHINA ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1132
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1373/2019

The court dismissed the application because it plainly concerned the applicant's dispute with the Legal Aid Department about distribution of settlement monies (paras 6 and 7 of the consent order), not any defect in the consent order vis-à-vis the respondent; the application lacked merit and was untimely, and therefore the applicant must pay the respondent's costs assessed summarily at HKD 5,000.