Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party proceedings

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

CHOW SUK YEE v. TAM HIU FAI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 248
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2538/2022

Court found objective evidence (car camera footage and vehicle damage) and medical evidence established nil or at most very minor injuries; plaintiffs' high pleaded claims were grossly inflated and commencement of three separate but overlapping actions caused substantial unjustified duplication of costs; defendant's applications for security for costs were reasonable in context; counsel fees and certain disbursements were not reasonably incurred; accordingly the court allowed District Court scale costs for the infant only because it was reasonable to have filed minor's claim in District Court…
6 Jun 2025

PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION LTD v. SUNNIC ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA428/2024

The Court exercised its discretion to direct that HCCT 42/2025 be heard by the same judge as HCA 428/2024 and HCA 491/2024, to be heard after the witnesses and evidence in HCA 428/2024 and HCA 491/2024 have been heard or after the issues in those actions (including third party proceedings) have been disposed of, with evidence to be deemed mutually admissible, because the actions contain overlapping factual and expert issues (notably delay, progress of works and the state of final accounts) and hearing them by the same judge will avoid inconsistent findings and may save time and costs provided…
17 Nov 2023

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD formerly known as CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL formerly known as CITIC KA WAH BANK LTD v. LI YAN HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2208/2019

Leave to issue the third party notice was refused and the Master’s order set aside because the intended third party claims were frivolous and bound to fail: the declaration of trust was unregistered and could not have caused actionable loss to a bona fide registered mortgagee under the LRO; the 1st defendant’s rescission allegations were incredible in light of contemporaneous documents (confirmation letter and attendance notes) and her own admissions; consequently there was no prima facie case to justify third party proceedings and P’s Summons was dismissed.
4 Nov 2022

YIP CHI WAN (suing by her attorney, LO CHI ON) LO CHI ON v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MERRY COURT, KOWLOON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1264
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6265/2020

s.20(1) Arbitration Ordinance operates independently of Order 12 rule 8; TP established a prima facie arbitration agreement in Clause 11.4 read in context and the court must refer the dispute to arbitration; consequently the third party proceedings were stayed and all further proceedings in respect of the defendant's claim against TP were referred to arbitration; costs ordered to TP on an indemnity basis.
19 Sept 2022

SUN HING GINZA LTD v. CHAN KAI YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2893
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1357/2012

Because Lucky Ford has been in compulsory liquidation and there is reason to believe it would be unable to meet an adverse costs order, and because on balance it was fair and just in all circumstances to require security while taking account of overlap and lack of apportionment, the court ordered security for costs payable into court but substantially reduced the quantum sought to a broad‑brush figure of HK$1,500,000 and imposed compliance and dismissal consequences for non‑payment.
3 Aug 2021

HERMAN BUDIHARDJO (ALIAS SIM HOK TJIONG)(SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS v. HADI GUNAWAN (ALIAS SIM HOK KHUN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA441/2012

Given the practical difficulties of apportioning costs between the Main Action and Counterclaim and the fact that much trial time was spent testing Hadi's credibility, the court adopted a broad-brush approach and ordered HRH to pay 60% of Hadi's costs of the whole action with certificate for two counsel; no discount was given for the limited relief on emoluments/fees; three-counsel certificate was refused; HRH awarded at least 90% of the Counterclaim costs but indemnity costs were not awarded for the misrepresentation claim.
7 Jan 2021

CHAN SUWANNA v. SYNERGIS MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1116/2018

Section 27 Limitation Ordinance, which sets a 3-year limit for personal injury damage claims, does not apply to a defendant's third party claim for contribution or indemnity; such claims constitute separate actions governed by section 6 LO and the Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance, and Order 16 permits issuing third party proceedings while the main action remains pending; accordingly the Master's order granting leave to issue the third party notice was correctly upheld and the third party's summons to rescind/set aside was rightly dismissed.
28 Sept 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING BLOCK A KAM PING STREET v. NG KING FONG JUDY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 763
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4309/2015

Costs follow the event: plaintiff awarded party-and-party costs against D1-3; plaintiff to pay D5-8 party-and-party costs; plaintiff to pay D4's costs on indemnity basis because suing the original settling plaintiff for the identical settlement sum was unreasonable to a high degree; D1-3 must pay D4's costs in the contributory and indemnity action on indemnity basis; TP's costs to be paid by D1-3 and D5-8 party-and-party to trial and on common fund basis thereafter; no Bullock order or two-counsel certificate awarded.
19 Mar 2020

YIP KIN KWAN KENNETH v. RICH WELL FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2181/2016

The court held the Firm did not breach its duty: its duty was limited by the express retainer to prepare and arrange execution of documents and incidental tasks; it reasonably checked the HKID and signatures and was entitled to rely on the Moneylender's prior approval and commercial verification; the Moneylender bore primary responsibility for commercial verification and risk, and therefore the Moneylender failed to prove negligence and causation by the Firm.
15 Nov 2019

CHEUNG HON KUEN v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2874
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3002/2018

Interim interim relief (freezing/proprietary injunction) against TP19 was refused because, on the inter partes record and given the chronology including prior police freeze and delay, there was insufficient evidence of a present real risk of dissipation and the balance of fairness did not favor granting the injunction; the view is provisional and the substantive hearing is adjourned.