Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs nisi

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2026

HOU YUANJIE v. LAW LAP SAN NIXON

Citation

[2026] HKDC 722
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1110/2023

Leave to appeal refused and stay refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the illegality point was unpleaded and material facts were not before the court so Igal Dafni did not apply; allegations of unfair trial were unmeritorious as the judge's questioning fell within proper evidence testing; the fresh evidence from Ng failed the Ladd v Marshall threshold (insufficient diligence and credibility concerns), therefore no arguable basis to admit new evidence on appeal; costs ordered to plaintiff on a nisi basis.
27 Apr 2026

FUNG SUK YEE v. CHAN SHING YAN TRADING AS WONDER EDUCATION INVESTMENT CONSULTING CO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 744
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6554/2024

The court refused the fresh evidence application because the plaintiff failed all three Ladd v Marshall requirements (no reasonable effort to produce the material at first instance, the materials would not have had a substantial impact on the outcome, and they lacked prima facie credibility). The default judgment was held to be regularly obtained and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success or adduce an admissible affidavit of merits; accordingly both the application to admit fresh evidence and the appeal to set aside the judgment were dismissed and costs were ordered (c…
31 Mar 2026

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. TARJOTO HERU HIDAJAT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 527
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV267/2025

The Defendants failed to address the only relevant questions (why they should not be liable for their failed stay application and the quantum of costs) and instead raised irrelevant alleged wrongs; accordingly the Summons is dismissed and costs follow the event, with the Plaintiff's costs of the Summons assessed on an indemnity basis at HK$28,346.
4 Mar 2026

YU CHUN SHING v. HUSSAIN AHMED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 389
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI286/2023

The court accepted that the accident caused an uncomplicated soft tissue lumbar injury and a mild traumatic brain injury/post‑concussion syndrome but, after evaluating the SJE reports, medical records, surveillance evidence and the plaintiff's testimony, found the plaintiff exaggerated many of his ongoing symptoms and that psychiatric symptoms did not persist beyond 15 months after the accident (recovered by 29 July 2021). Consequently the plaintiff was awarded PSLA HK$325,000, pre‑trial loss of earnings and MPF HK$308,353 and special damages HK$3,000 (total HK$636,353) with interest HK$81,77…
26 Jan 2026

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 578
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2003

Relief from the Unless Order was granted despite culpable delay because the proposed expert evidence was prima facie relevant and necessary to determine whether the PRC Judgment is final and conclusive for res judicata; defendants did not intend to adduce competing expert evidence and accepted the trial timetable would not be affected, so the interests of the administration of justice outweighed the prejudice from delay; however, plaintiffs were penalised for lateness by an order nisi for costs and restrictions were placed on defendants filing expert evidence or producing a joint expert state…
26 Sept 2025

KISHIN SAMTANI, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF NARIAN SAMTANI, DECEASED v. CHANDERSEN TIKAMDAS SAMTANI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA496/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's proposed variations: the plaintiff failed to show that the credit notes produced late were of the bank-issued category previously sought and the plaintiff had nonetheless pursued the misappropriation claim after the CESCO Arrangement was pleaded; there were insufficient special features to award indemnity costs; the administrator (Kishin) is prima facie personally liable and therefore the Estate of Narian Samtani and Kishin are ordered jointly and severally to pay defendant's costs on party-and-party basis with certificate for two counsel; the plaintiff's var…
22 Sept 2025

LAM PO YEE v. YU SHUI MUI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2092/2024

The judge found particular time and fee items excessive on their face and applied broad-brush reductions to communications and professional work entries, disallowed an unreasonable counsel engagement fee for a 3-minute hearing, accepted certain fee earner involvement as reasonable, and summarily assessed the hearing costs at HK$110,000 and the appeal costs at HK$151,000, with Plaintiff to pay the assessed sums and certificate for counsel.
21 Feb 2025

EST-OUEST AUCTIONS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEW ART EST-OUEST AUCTIONS COMPANY LTD formerly known as NEW ART EST-OUEST AUCTIONS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 782
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP45/2023

The court exercised its discretion to refuse variation of the Nisi Order: the Defendant is not entitled to indemnity costs because Clause 14.1 does not bind the Defendant company; the Defendant's partial failure on Core Issue 3 justifies a 20% discount to its costs entitlement; the 80% order stands and includes the costs of the Injunction Summons; both variation summonses are dismissed with no costs ordered.
19 Dec 2024

JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD (In liquidation) v. FAMEWAY FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1497/2022

Costs were ordered to follow the event: the receiving party for Lau’s application was varied to the Chen Sisters; Fameway was ordered to pay the Chen Sisters the costs of Fameway’s application; Fameway was ordered to pay the Chen Sisters the costs of the Order 13 application incurred after 17 February 2023; and the costs were summarily assessed at HK$500,000 for the Order 13 and Fameway applications combined and HK$200,000 for Lau’s application, with certificates for two counsel where stated.
19 Dec 2024

FAMEWAY FINANCE LTD v. JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD (In liquidation)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA510/2012

Costs follow the event; the Chen Sisters (not Joy Rich) are entitled to receive the costs they incurred resisting the applications; Fameway must pay the Chen Sisters the costs of the Order 13 application incurred after 17 February 2023 and the costs of Fameway's strike‑out application; Lau must pay the Chen Sisters the costs of Lau's application; summary assessment fixed HK$500,000 for the Order 13 and Fameway applications and HK$200,000 for Lau's application.