Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Allocation of costs

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. ATAL BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCA 214
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1093/2025

Although the Respondents succeeded overall, the Commission achieved partial substantive success on several points and key strands of the Respondents' arguments were rejected; exercising the court's discretion under Order 62 and relevant authorities, fair allocation requires the Commission to pay a substantial but not full proportion of the Respondents' costs; accordingly the Commission was ordered to pay two-thirds of the Respondents' costs of the leave applications and the appeal, taxed if not agreed, with no order as to costs for the summons.
10 Feb 2026

J & T INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ZHANG CHENG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKDC 220
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4564/2025

The court granted access because the plaintiff's provisional expert reports provided a prima facie basis to include Kam Tong Building as a possible source of seepage; the relief sought was limited to access for testing, not determination of liability or expert methodology, and therefore access was appropriate while leaving choice of experts and testing methodology to the parties; costs orders were made to require the plaintiff to bear defendants' reasonable costs of compliance and indemnity costs to D1 and D2 of HK$35,000.
13 May 2025

KAN SAU LAN, the Administratrix of the Estate of TSANG MA MING, deceased v. XU HONG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1958/2021

The court granted the Plaintiff's application for specific discovery relating to the rental affairs of the Disputed Lands and ordered that net rental income from the Disputed Lands after 14 August 2017 be paid into an escrow account; because the Plaintiff was fully successful in the Discovery Application but only partially successful in the Preservation Order Application the court ordered two separate costs regimes: the Defendant must pay 85% of the costs of the Discovery Application forthwith (certificate for two counsel) and the costs of the Preservation Order Application are the Plaintiff'…
8 Jan 2025

TONGCHENG TRAVEL HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as TONGCHENG-ELONG HOLDINGS LTD) v. OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD and AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1258/2022

Costs were split using 16 April 2024 as the cut-off; costs of the Summons and Garnishee Order Nisi before that date to the Plaintiff; costs thereafter to the Defendant on an indemnity basis; Plaintiff to bear costs of the New Evidence Summons; certificate limited to one counsel; costs of the Variation Summons payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant forthwith and to be taxed if not agreed.
2 Feb 2024

LONG HAI HONG v. CHAN YU LYDIA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 362
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3179/2013

The court exercised its case management discretion to stay the committal proceedings (including the Setting Aside Application) pending the outcome of the main trial because allowing the committal to proceed would risk prejudice and inconsistent findings, impose impractical evidential complexities (notably the differing relevance and admissibility of privileged Category 2 Documents), and therefore it is necessary and practical to adjudicate the committal after the trial; consequential costs of the case management stay were awarded to the Applicant and summarily assessed within specified parame…
13 Nov 2023

LAM YIU PANG v. LAM YIU HOI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2884
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP31/2020

The court held that a certificate for leading counsel was not warranted and only one junior counsel should be certified because the case raised no difficult, novel or complex legal issues, was essentially a factual dispute requiring no specialised skill, the matter lacked particular importance to the applicants given the long delay since death, the respondent did not instruct a leader and the instructed junior was competent to conduct the trial alone.
3 Oct 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1142
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2023

The Court refused to vary the costs order in relation to Ricky and D3–D31 because their role on appeal was limited and submissions overlapped, so no separate costs order was justified; the Court ordered that the Company’s substantial appeal costs (including leave application costs) be paid by Ricky on an indemnity basis because the Company improperly expended company funds in a shareholders' dispute and its participation was unnecessary and triplicated submissions.
9 Jun 2023

WONG LUI v. A, XIABUZHA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1532
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2021

Orders 45(c) and 46 construed together require that, save for the costs of the 16 March 2023 hearing to be borne by the Plaintiff, the balance of the costs of the application are to be dealt with under 45(c) (i.e. paid out of the Estate in the first instance with party liability reserved); on summary assessment the judge attributed 30% of specified items to the 16 March hearing, assessed items B1/B2 at HK$2,865, Item C at HK$55,000, Items D1–D3 at HK$30,000, counsel fee at HK$120,000, included an item of HK$17,400 and rounded the total assessed cost for the 16 March hearing to HK$163,800, and…
11 May 2023

YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 595
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1252/2016

It was reasonable for the applicant to have joined R2 and R4 given the uncertainties at the time of proceedings; R3 was held to be the employer and liable; a Sanderson order was appropriate to distribute hardship because R3's ability to pay was not assured; accordingly R3 was ordered to pay the applicant’s costs (including costs of pursuing R1,R2 and R4), to pay the costs of R1,R2 and R4 (with R3 liable for 75% of R1’s costs), with certificates for counsel and taxation; R3 and R4 to pay applicant’s costs of this application nisi to become absolute in 14 days.
7 Dec 2022

XIAO QUNYING v. PAP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3700
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2130/2021

Because the defendants provided an affirmed statement that the requested financial documents do not exist and had offered to pay the plaintiff's costs from 2 August 2022, there was no basis for an order for disclosure; consequently the proper order is no order for disclosure and a split costs order: defendants pay costs up to and including 18 November 2022, plaintiff pays defendants' costs thereafter from 19 November 2022.