Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of discontinued proceedings

Legal area

Court

27 Aug 2021

TSEN YUN LEI v. LO KIN FUNG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW121/2013

The court applied the general rule and found the Plaintiff failed to show withdrawal was for reasons other than likely defeat because the supplemental disclosures and affirmations were limited and insufficient and the Plaintiff’s evidence did not particularise relevance and necessity for each category sought; accordingly the Plaintiff must pay the Defendants’ costs of and occasioned by the Summons and the costs of the costs hearing.
19 Aug 2016

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS

Citation

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC558/2013

On the evidence the applicant would very likely have established employment and liability and would likely have recovered statutory compensation of $507,000; the Advance Payment and subsequent Consent Order did not constitute accord and satisfaction; the applicant's failure to notify respondent of the PI settlement did not cause prejudice material to costs and repayment because respondent relinquished any repayment claim and the loss of indemnity resulted from respondent's denial of liability; accordingly the general rule on costs on discontinuance was displaced and the respondent must pay th…
13 Dec 2013

PANG CHUN KWONG v. PANG HANG LAU

Citation

PANG CHUN KWONG v. PANG HANG LAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2352/2012

Because the plaintiff obtained substantially what he sought (substantive disclosure and accounts) and the defendant had delayed provision of documents, the court departed from the usual rule and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the originating summons to the plaintiff to be taxed on a party-and-party basis if not agreed; indemnity costs were not justified on the evidence.
10 Sept 2010

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. 陳德明 AND OTHERS

Citation

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. 陳德明 AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1189/2005

Defendants imposed oppressive and unreasonable conditions that obstructed the plaintiff's statutory and contractual right under clause 58 of the DMC; that conduct amounted to gross negligence; because the plaintiff obtained substantially what he sought by receipt of duplicate tapes on 12 July 2005 the court awarded costs to the plaintiff up to that date, with no order as to costs between 12 and 28 July 2005, and ordered that costs from 28 July 2005 until discontinuance follow the normal rule and be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.
25 May 2005

HI-TECH PRECISION PRODUCTS LTD v. SOUNDWELL FAR EAST LTD

Citation

HI-TECH PRECISION PRODUCTS LTD v. SOUNDWELL FAR EAST LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV294/2003

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the trial judge was entitled to find the 6 March 2001 letter was an unequivocal admission of liability and that the Company did not credibly explain it away until the 3 January 2003 affirmation, so the judge lawfully exercised discretion in awarding costs to the Petitioner; appellate interference was not justified.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSEN YUN LEI v. LO KIN FUNG

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS

PANG CHUN KWONG v. PANG HANG LAU

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. 陳德明 AND OTHERS

HI-TECH PRECISION PRODUCTS LTD v. SOUNDWELL FAR EAST LTD