Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cost orders

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

CHAN HON WING v. GOLDEN FAIR ENVIRONMENT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1801
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC389/2024

Court accepted Applicant's evidence of monthly earnings $23,400 (supported by employer returns and MPF) and adopted the Form 7 assessment of 5.1% LOEC; applied CPI(A) 2.3% to uprate earnings for the period after March 2024; computed s10 for certified sick leave periods, deducted periodical payments already made, awarded s9 based on 72 months and 5.1% LOEC, awarded s10A for medical expenses, rounded total to $191,392 and ordered interest and costs against Respondent.
11 Mar 2025

INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTANTS, INC v. MAESC CO. LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2023

Because MCL was in default and sought the Court's indulgence to set aside a regularly entered default judgment, the general rule required MCL to pay IMA's costs of the Summons (summarily assessed at HK$300,000); for the Remaining Costs the fairest exercise of discretion was to make them follow the event of the US action (assessed at HK$110,000 recoverable by IMA only if IMA prevails in the US action) while taking MCL's fault into account; MCL was also ordered to pay HK$20,000 on nisi for the costs disputes with that nisi to become absolute in 14 days if not varied.
10 Jul 2023

林鎮星對林秀霞

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1737/2022

The recusal application was refused because the applicant produced no evidence of actual or apparent bias; mere prior handling of multiple matters involving the applicant does not constitute a sufficient basis for replacement of the judge. The application for a restriction order failed because the defendant's litigation history did not show abuse of process likely to continue. The plaintiff's procedural summons was dismissed as unnecessary or without merit and costs were awarded to the defendant.
29 Dec 2022

S,PJ v. S,CE nee D,CE

Citation

[2022] HKFC 288
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC664/2012

The variation application was dismissed and the Cost Order Nisi was made absolute because the husband had advanced wholly unsupported and unreasonable allegations (the alleged verbal agreement and increased time with the child), had been in breach of the AR 2013 Order, and the trial judge properly exercised discretion under Order 62, rule 5(2) to order costs against him (50%).
21 Aug 2014

KAN SHIU CHEONG FREDERICK v. KAN SIU YING ERNEST AND OTHERS

Citation

KAN SHIU CHEONG FREDERICK v. KAN SIU YING ERNEST AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP490/2006

Part 1 of the Bill of Costs comprised indivisible joint costs incurred for all five defendants and, absent good reason to the contrary, must be apportioned equally among the five defendants (20% each); the 1st defendant was not entitled to a larger share because he acted as agent and separable defendant-specific costs had already been placed in Parts 2 and 3.
7 Aug 2008

YU TAN LEE v. CHEUNG KWOK CHOI

Citation

YU TAN LEE v. CHEUNG KWOK CHOI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI595/2007

The controlling rule is that medical experts should not be asked to prepare separate reports commenting on surveillance tapes without first obtaining leave and disclosing good reasons; absent such leave and grounds, a supplemental report commenting on surveillance may be unnecessary and attract a costs order.
23 Aug 2007

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV274/2006

In Hong Kong s.25 LPO permits public reimbursement of the Law Society's expenses; consequently the English Baxendale Walker approach does not apply here as a general rule. Absent good reason, costs should generally follow the event in disciplinary proceedings and a successful solicitor is ordinarily entitled to costs; the Tribunal retains broad discretion to consider regulator conduct and case-specific factors.
18 Feb 2004

DAVID MORTER v. HKSAR

Citation

DAVID MORTER v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC33/2003

Leave to appeal was granted because the prosecution indicated it did not oppose the grant of leave or the appeal and gave undertakings as to preparation of the record; consequential procedural orders were made to facilitate the appeal.
5 Nov 1999

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN

Citation

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7959/1997

The application for a Mareva injunction was dismissed because there was insufficient evidence that the plaintiff intended to dissipate assets; absence of such evidence meant the court would not exercise its discretion to grant the draconian Mareva relief.