Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certificate for counsel

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

COSIMO BORRELLI AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2746
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP408/2025

The court ordered the Receivers/Applicants to pay the specified costs to CNG and HSFK with certificates for two counsel and taxation if not agreed, refused to order indemnity costs, and directed taxation rather than summary assessment because the applications involved novel and overlapping issues and substantial costs; the Receivers/Applicants were held responsible for 70% of the costs of the summonses to reflect their failure to secure a certificate for one counsel.
4 Aug 2025

BGA HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) (formerly known as BEIBU GULF OCEAN SHIPPING (GROUP) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHU KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA631/2022

D1 is entitled to party-and-party costs as the successful party; however a 30% reduction of D1's costs is justified because D1 ambitiously prosecuted the separate Lohas Transaction issue which materially increased length and cost; indemnity costs are refused because the case lacked the required special or unusual features or clear abuse of process; summary assessment is refused and the claimed quantum is to be taxed if not agreed; certificate for 3 counsel granted with exception for costs-of-costs arguments where 2 counsel applies.
4 Jul 2025

WEALTHY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CELEBRITY CREDIT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1119
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2148/2023

Because the judgment was reserved and there were no submissions on costs, the costs order was, by necessary implication, an order nisi; the plaintiff applied within the 14 day period and established that counsel attendance was proper and necessary, therefore the costs order was varied to include a Certificate for Counsel; alternatively the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to amend the costs order prior to sealing.
23 Jun 2025

WMF v. TY aks TLY, the executrix to the estate of the Deceased

Citation

[2025] HKFC 114
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP24/2023

Respondent failed to comply with the New Arrangement by filing skeleton submissions late without leave, took no timely remedial steps or application for retrospective leave, and in the balancing exercise (Applicant's advanced age, needs-based award, likely multi-year delay and inequality of arms) the failure amounted to failure to prosecute with due diligence; accordingly striking out and dismissal of the leave application was justified and costs and certificate for counsel were ordered.
25 Feb 2025

SO KAI WING v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 176
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3443/2021

Because the plaintiff unreasonably failed to accept or respond to multiple settlement offers, did not beat those offers at trial, and was found dishonest with the claim dismissed, the court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi to costs on an indemnity basis, grant a Certificate for Counsel and order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application on an indemnity basis.
5 Feb 2025

CHEUNG HING v. ROTH & SONS ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 166
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI181/2019

The court held that although the Defendant's failure to accept TP1's offers justified a higher scale of costs, the Defendant's conduct was not 'unreasonable to a high degree' required for indemnity costs; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to award costs on and after 14 May 2022 on a common fund basis with a certificate for counsel, and TP1's summons seeking indemnity costs was refused; costs of TP1's application were ordered to the Defendant on a party-and-party basis.
31 Dec 2024

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1073/2021

The court exercised its power to summarily assess costs and, applying a broad brush approach, allowed and fixed specific sums: Order 14 application total at $146,000 (including a $100,000 brief); Order 14 appeal total at $590,000 (consisting of $150,000 for Items B–D5, $40,000 for Item E1, and $400,000 for counsel briefs). The court held that being 'costs in the cause' does not automatically validate counsel fees where no certificate was sought or granted.
15 Nov 2024

LAM WAI KONG v. LAM YING KIT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP28/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the Master did not err in law or exercise her discretion unreasonably: she legitimately considered the parties' pre-application conduct and complexity, was entitled to depart from the standard time-summons costs order, to make a summary assessment under O.62 r.9A, and the award of HK$75,000 with a certificate for counsel fell within the permissible range of her discretion.
1 Nov 2024

BEIJING SONGXIANGHU ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION ENGINEERING CO., LTD v. KITTY KAM also known as WANG YUZHI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3069
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1289/2022

For the Confidentiality Summons the court refused indemnity costs but ordered party‑and‑party costs with a certificate for two counsel, to be summarily assessed and payable forthwith; for the Striking Out Summons the court varied to indemnity costs (including reserved costs), with certificate for two counsel, to be summarily assessed and payable forthwith; variation application costs ordered no order as to costs on nisi basis to become absolute in 7 days absent application. Summary assessment hearing fixed and filing timetables directed.
9 May 2024

CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP22/2019

The application to vary the Costs Order Nisi was refused: the Court held that having considered the overall conclusion and the relative importance of the Disputed Paragraphs the Plaintiff's liability of 60% was appropriate and should be made absolute; the Defendants must bear the costs of the variation application and specified timelines for summary assessment were ordered.