Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Trial costs

  • 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 Nov 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 高卓梵

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1746
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC19/2021

    Application for original‑trial costs was refused because there were two positive reasons to deny costs: (1) the appellant’s conduct objectively invited suspicion (receipt of a package containing drugs and drugs and paraphernalia found at home); and (2) the prosecution’s case had considerable strength and the trial/appellate errors were technical rather than demonstrating lack of prosecutorial merit; additionally the appellant had been granted legal aid for the retrial, removing the special financial burden considered in Chan Hing Kai (No.2).

  • 1 Sept 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳瑞文

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 1298
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC146/2021

    The Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by treating presence on the pavement as decisive and by applying a double standard to mask‑wearing; objectively the respondent's conduct (mask, location in the core area, lingering and route choice) gave rise to self‑invited suspicion, so the costs order in his favor was wrongly made and must be set aside.

  • 22 Dec 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 謝國强

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 3084
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA204/2019

    Refusal to award trial costs was correct because the appellant's decision to leave an emaciated, elderly dog unattended while moving constituted an improper arrangement that reasonably invited suspicion and third‑party intervention; that created a proper basis for the prosecution and rendered the refusal of costs lawful despite the eventual acquittal on the charged offences.

  • 14 May 2020

    香港特別行政區 訴 鄭耀揚

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 728
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA392/2019

    The judge correctly exercised her discretion to refuse costs: the appellant gave inconsistent, evasive and implausible accounts about staying at an alternative lodging, admitted conduct in interview that invited suspicion, and the evidential absence of his name in the hotel's dynamic register combined with his contradictory statements justified finding he had invited suspicion and misled investigators; therefore despite acquittal the costs order was properly refused.

  • 18 Jul 2017

    香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊軒

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 黃俊軒
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA291/2016

    Given the totality of facts — including co-arrest of both parties, original arrest for criminal damage rather than assault, inconsistent complaints by the complainant, evidence of damaged property and settlement communications — the appellant's conduct did not amount to self-induced suspicion; therefore the court exercises its discretion to award the appellant the costs of the trial.

  • 1 Jun 2016

    香港特別行政區 訴 劉子安

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 劉子安
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA644/2015

    The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the trial judge erred in depriving the acquitted appellant of full costs on the grounds of supposed self‑incrimination and pre‑trial non‑disclosure; in the circumstances the appellant’s withholding of the video did not constitute a positive reason to deny full costs and the appellant is entitled to full trial costs, to be assessed if not agreed.

  • 10 Feb 2014

    香港特別行政區 訴 洪清權及另七人

    Citation
    香港特別行政區 訴 洪清權及另七人
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC113/2012

    The court found that, on the evidence, most acquitted defendants did not deliberately mislead the prosecution and therefore were entitled to recover trial costs; the prosecution caused the April 2013 adjournment by unreasonably and substantially delaying delivery of the complete forensic accounting report, so adjournment costs were ordered against the prosecution; the second defendant, having been convicted on some counts though substantial evidence overlapped with counts resulting in acquittal, should recover only one‑third of her trial costs; the request for recognition that two senior coun…