Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Unreasonable litigation conduct
  • 3 Aug 2018

    LWS v. LAJ

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 128
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10209/2017

    The judge found that although the mother's delay in withdrawing the petition was unfortunate, her conduct did not amount to unreasonable litigation conduct sufficient to depart from the usual position in child-related matters; therefore no order as to costs was made in respect of the order dated 9 April 2018, with costs to be taxed party and party if not agreed and the mother's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.

  • 10 Dec 2013

    FKYP v. KHYF

    Citation
    FKYP v. KHYF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7952/2012

    Although the Father's application for leave to appeal was weak, it was not vexatious or designed to harass and therefore did not amount to unreasonable litigation conduct warranting a costs order; consequently there is no order as to costs except that the Mother's own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

  • 29 Oct 2013

    IDC v. SSA

    Citation
    IDC v. SSA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP158/2011

    While starting principles favour no order for costs in children cases, costs prima facie follow the event for financial provision claims; balancing the Mother’s obligation to bring the claim, the marked disparity in means, and the Father's partial responsibility for increasing costs through disclosure issues, but also accounting for the Mother's unreasonably high demands that increased costs, it was fair to order the Father to pay 70% of the Mother's costs, taxed party & party if not agreed, with credit for HK$750,000 already paid.

  • 31 Jan 2011

    C v. H

    Citation
    C v. H
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14600/2009

    The court held that a departure from the usual no-order rule was justified because the husband's conduct in pursuing sole custody was unreasonable and effectively hopeless (late realistic offers, failure to engage with children or assessments, causing substantial unnecessary litigation), and because of a marked disparity in financial resources; accordingly the husband must pay the costs of the custody application, including previously reserved costs, with certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed and payable forthwith.