Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary assessment vs taxation

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

COSIMO BORRELLI AND ANOTHER v. CHINA NATIONAL GOLD GROUP HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP968/2025

The court ordered full payment of costs by the Receivers to CNG and HSFK and refused indemnity costs because, although some conduct (late affidavit, duties to BVI court) was concerning and the applications were found to attempt circumvention, the applications were arguable on novel and complex legal questions, the Moran's Affidavit assisted the respondents, and costs overlapped across proceedings making taxation (not summary assessment) appropriate; a certificate for two counsel was justified and a 70% adjustment applied to reflect receivers' failure to secure a one‑counsel certificate.
16 Apr 2026

AMMAR ABDALMOEEN HUSSEIN IBRAHIM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2026] HKDC 664
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4008/2023

Leave to appeal was granted because the parties had a Specific Agreement that costs were to be taxed, the court would have given weight to that agreement and would not have changed it absent cogent reasons; the court was not informed and did not afford the parties an opportunity to be heard before altering the costs provision, thereby giving the proposed appeal a reasonable prospect of success.
5 Sept 2025

SIR ELLY KADOORIE & SONS LTD (FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ITSELF, ITS CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS, INCLUDING ITS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, MESSRS SIMMONS & SIMMONS) v. SAMANTHA JANE BRADLEY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA518/2022

The Court refused to reserve costs; it held SEKSL, as successful party on the Second Summons, was entitled to its costs; summary assessment under Order 62 r 9A was appropriate because the amount was not so complex as to require taxation and there were no substantial grounds that could not be dealt with summarily; the assessed costs were ordered payable forthwith with time for statements of objection and the defendant's variation summons was dismissed.
29 Nov 2024

TARJINDER SINGH v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2042
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5061/2021

Defendant failed to discharge the high burden of proving exceptional circumstances to invoke the otherwise proviso despite giving prior warning; a below‑jurisdiction sanctioned payment (HK$40,000) did not justify departure from the prima facie rule because plaintiff had reasonable grounds to commence in the District Court and defendant's conduct did not justify reducing the costs scale; therefore defendant must pay plaintiff's costs up to 9 July 2024 at the District Court scale, to be summarily assessed if not agreed.
5 May 2023

RE CHU JIARU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8394/2020

The court ordered that costs should in general follow the event but, balancing the Bankrupt's success in establishing a bona fide dispute and the Bankrupt's unsatisfactory conduct in the bankruptcy, reduced the Petitioner's costs entitlement to 75% and summarily assessed the Petitioner's costs entitlement at HK$1,800,000 (with 75% being HK$1,350,000); the court ordered trustees' costs be paid from the estate but reimbursed by the Bankrupt after unsecured creditors are paid or on discharge; summary assessment was appropriate given the court's familiarity; no order as to costs on the Petitioner…
24 Feb 2023

MAN KAI-KWONG, DAVID v. MAK YING-MUI as the administratrix of the estate of the Deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP703/2019

The court refused to vary the Costs Order Nisi because the Plaintiff failed on the substantive claims and the proceedings were hostile litigation; summary assessment was declined because not all interlocutory hearings were before the deciding judge and the final judgment's costs are more appropriately taxed; accordingly the Costs Order Nisi is made absolute, the Plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings to be taxed if not agreed, and all summonses seeking variation are dismissed.
26 Jan 2022

THAPA KAMALA v. HO LAI MING (Deputy Special Magistrate at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts)

Citation

[2022] HKDC 102
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1719/2019

The court held that the Summonses were largely self-contained and severable for taxation purposes, that immediate payment of the plaintiff's interlocutory costs was appropriate notwithstanding lack of detailed financial evidence, and that summary assessment of those costs was preferable to taxation; accordingly the costs order was varied to include reserved costs, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Summonses forthwith, and those costs were to be summarily assessed with specified lodgement deadlines and payment within 14 days after assessment.
24 Sept 2021

LIU HUI HONG, the person appointed to represent the estate of LI SHIYOU, deceased (by carry on order dated 30 September 2015) AND ANOTHER v. FONG WAI MENG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI390/2015

The appeal was dismissed because plaintiffs adopted the wrong procedure (appeal under Order 58 rather than review under Order 62) and could not show the taxing masters exercise of discretion was plainly wrong; the taxing masters Cost Order Absolute disallowing the provisionally taxed Part C costs was upheld as reasonable given the substantial reduction of the billed amounts and the paying partys offer; plaintiffs were ordered to pay defendants costs of the Appeal and Discontinuation Summons on indemnity basis to be summarily assessed; the wasted costs application against plaintiffs solic…
20 Jun 2016

MILLION DECADE LTD v. TUNG FAI also known as DONG HUI

Citation

MILLION DECADE LTD v. TUNG FAI also known as DONG HUI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2013

The court held Tung was entitled to costs of the abandoned Interrogatories Appeal and Wei should pay those costs to Tung to be taxed forthwith if not agreed; Million Decade must pay Tung the costs of the WS Amended Appeal to be taxed forthwith if not agreed; there should be no order as to costs in respect of the FBP Appeal or the FBP Summons; apportionment percentages for counsel brief fees and solicitors' attendance at the Appeal Hearing were fixed to assist taxation, and summary assessment was inappropriate for the full range of items so taxation was ordered for the principal items.
12 Aug 2009

SUN HUNG KAI INVESTMENT SERVICES LTD v. QUALITY PRINCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUN HUNG KAI INVESTMENT SERVICES LTD v. QUALITY PRINCE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1995/2008

The Master held that summary assessment under Order 62 r9C was appropriate and refused to order taxation; contractual entitlement to indemnity costs did not override the court's discretion and indemnity costs were refused because defendants acted reasonably; costs were to be assessed on a party-and-party basis with one counsel allowed and the total party-and-party costs assessed at HK$650,000.