Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Taxation

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2022

廣豐台業主立案法團 v. NOMINSHARE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM109/2019

The Respondent failed to take timely steps to ensure attendance of its out-of-jurisdiction witness after trial dates were fixed and delayed informing the court and Applicant, thereby making itself at least partly the author of the adjournment; accordingly the Respondent must pay the Applicant's costs of the adjournment application (to be summarily assessed) and the costs of the summons (to be summarily assessed), and must pay costs thrown away by the adjournment to be taxed on a party-and-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs are not awarded because pandemic-related factors and the degre…
6 Jun 2022

MARKLAND GLOBAL INVESTMENT LTD v. TSUI HOI SAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 538
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1329/2019

The default judgment was set aside because it granted relief over the Pink Area which was not pleaded in the defendant's Defence and Counterclaim (which concerned the Green Area); a court cannot grant a default judgment based on an unpleaded case and the judgment was therefore irregular.
24 May 2022

BEST FIELD INC v. TRIANGULAR FORCE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA913/2021

Having weighed factors including defendant's non-response to correspondence, the potential reuse of affidavits in arbitration, and that this was not a classic case to refuse a stay, the court granted the stay and, exercising its costs discretion, ordered the plaintiff to pay two-thirds of the defendant's costs on a party and party basis to be taxed on a gross sum, assessed at HK$280,000 payable within 21 days.
6 Jan 2021

WONG WING WAH v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP DUTY

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 11
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1479/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success on the merits (BSD is a legitimate taxation measure rationally connected and, if necessary, proportionate to legitimate aims), the applicant had inordinate unexplained delay (approximately 46 months) precluding an extension of time, and judicial review was an inappropriate collateral route given the statutory appeal process; accordingly the application for leave was dismissed and costs awarded to the Collector.
19 Jul 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The court refused to order indemnity or common fund costs because the Plaintiffs' conduct, while involving a procedurally irregular and unjustified ex parte injunction, did not present special or unusual features warranting indemnity costs; the Continuation Summonses were not entirely devoid of merit; delay and warning letters were relevant but insufficient to elevate costs beyond party and party; accordingly the Summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed except that costs of and occasioned by the Plaintiffs' Continuation Summonses previously reserved (if any) should be to the 2nd Def…
31 Oct 2018

GOSSIP DAILY LTD v. NEXT MEDIA MAGAZINES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2366
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA305/2018

Because there was no factual dispute and the affirmations were brief, summary assessment was appropriate; costs were properly awarded on an indemnity basis; specific claimed items and hours were excessive and were reduced (attendance to 3 hours each for partner and associate, halving of two other claimed heads), resulting in a summary assessment of HK$125,000.
4 Jul 2018

ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1531
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP285/2016

The court found the respondent's claimed times and fee‑earners excessive given the nature of the matters, allowed Mr Julian Copeman an hourly rate of HKD 4,000 but reduced the respondent's recoverable costs for the Appeal to HKD 130,000 (being 75% as summarily assessed), assessed Stay Summons costs at HKD 70,000, disallowed counsel items D2 and G1 for the Lifting of Stay Summons and assessed the applicants' costs for that summons at HKD 45,000 with an additional HKD 10,000 allowed for preparation where appropriate.
27 Dec 2017

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2017

The Court held that the appeal was wholly unmeritorious and vexatious, the respondents gave no explanation for deliberate contempts and had abandoned the appeal; the judge below had validly exercised discretion to order indemnity costs and it was appropriate to fix indemnity costs at HK$125,000, inclusive of taxation matters.
24 Nov 2017

LAU WING YAN v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESEEL “BBG GLORY”

Citation

LAU WING YAN v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESEEL “BBG GLORY”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ78/2017

The costs order made in the Decision was an order nisi under O.42 r.5B and the court has power to vary it to an order of summary assessment with immediate payment; sale of the vessels renders the related admiralty claims academic but does not preclude immediate payment of costs; derivative claims require joinder and do not prevent defendants from having costs paid forthwith.
27 Jan 2017

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FLORA GARDEN v. LI DO WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM283/2014

The Tribunal exercised its discretion and dismissed the respondents' applications to vary the costs orders nisi: the IO was not unreasonable in mediation or in instituting proceedings in the Lands Tribunal given the complexity, the respondents' partial success on the 10% Additional Costs did not justify depriving the IO of costs, alleged solicitor non-compliance and procedural matters did not warrant variation at this stage, and costs should follow the event; accordingly the variation applications were dismissed and costs awarded to the applicant to be taxed at District Court scale if not agr…