Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conduct and costs

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2021

CMT v. ADS

Citation

[2021] HKFC 49
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4383/2016

The court declined to vary the costs nisi. The Husband's summons was dismissed because he had not paid interim maintenance at a level he earlier proposed, proposed payment from decree absolute which the court found unreasonable, and the Wife's attempt to backdate did not justify depriving her of costs; therefore Husband ordered to pay the Wife's costs on a party and party basis and those costs to be taxed per the Legal Aid Regulations.
29 Apr 2020

LIN REN XIANG v. KO YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP557/2014

Ko and Gold Glory are awarded party-and-party costs because Ko was the overall winner on the central issue (the increase and allotment was with Lin's knowledge and consent); there was no conduct by Ko taking the case out of the norm to justify depriving her of costs or ordering indemnity costs; Gold Glory being a named defendant is entitled to seek costs and any assessment of quantum is for taxation.
10 Sept 2019

NINOTRE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. STRONG LIGHT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2440
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW72/2019

The respondent was not obliged to accept the Petitioners' 2 August offer of a third party guarantee without further information; third party guarantees require the applicant's agreement and, where contested, court approval; accordingly costs are ordered against the Petitioners up to and including 2 August 2019 (with a certificate for counsel) while the costs of the application after 2 August 2019 are to be costs in the cause, with today's hearing costs to be paid by the Petitioners to Flying Mortgage.
14 Mar 2016

WMJ v. CPS

Citation

WMJ v. CPS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP55/2015

The court held that the applicant's strike-out of paragraph 1 was meritorious and would likely have succeeded, but strike-out of paragraph 2 was not clearly bound to succeed; the Calderbank offer of 27 Nov 2015 was a serious offer worthy of consideration and the respondent unreasonably failed to respond; having regard to merit and conduct the fair costs order was that the respondent pay 50% of applicant's costs up to 16 Nov 2015 and pay applicant's costs from 27 Nov 2015 onward, with taxation if not agreed and certificates for counsel's attendance, and respondent's own costs taxed under Legal…
7 Apr 2011

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR LAP LIK CHU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR LAP LIK CHU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1095/2005

The Master's paragraph 2(b) fixing the 2nd plaintiff for all costs from 12 April 2010 was unreasonable and is to be substituted as per the notice of appeal; the security for costs provided by both plaintiffs remains available to satisfy defendants' costs and that part of the Master's order is not disturbed; paragraph 4 is set aside and replaced so that the 1st plaintiff must pay the 2nd plaintiff and the defendants the costs of and occasioned by the application; the costs of the leave to amend (minor amendment) remain to be borne by the 2nd plaintiff. The appeal is allowed in part.
29 Dec 2008

B v. Z

Citation

B v. Z
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14535/2005

On the facts, there were no significant capital assets and the wife's earning capacity was limited; applying MPPO s.7(1) and the three strands (needs, compensation, sharing) the court awarded needs-based periodical maintenance to achieve fairness: $60,000 per month to the wife from 1 December 2008 until death or remarriage; husband to pay $7,500 per month for each child and $30,000 per half year for holiday costs; lump sum $50,000 for dental within six months and $50,000 for a piano payable upon completion of the university music course; the husband's offer to pay $30,000 per year for three y…
14 Dec 2005

F v. F

Citation

F v. F
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7746/2004

The court accepted a valuation inclusive of GST (NZ$840,000 = HK$4,620,000), allowed specific deductions (ANZ mortgage HK$1,497,925; second charge HK$450,000; loan from husbands mother HK$270,000; maintenance/upkeep HK$405,412) producing net equity HK$1,996,663, and held that a clean‑break lump sum of HK$1,000,000 payable by the Husband to the Wife in return for transfer of her interest was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

CMT v. ADS

LIN REN XIANG v. KO YIN AND OTHERS

NINOTRE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. STRONG LIGHT INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

WMJ v. CPS

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. VICTOR LAP LIK CHU AND ANOTHER

B v. Z

F v. F