Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Costs of summons

Legal area

Court

26 Jan 2026

CHAMPION FOREVER GROUP LTD v. ADDCHANCE DYEING FACTORY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 554
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2556/2017

The court found plaintiffs' entire case relied on knowingly fabricated agreements by Sung Sr, amounting to an abuse of process and rendering plaintiffs' conduct highly unreasonable; because HCPIL and CAIL were compelled to participate to protect their interests and incurred additional costs due to that abuse, indemnity costs were justified to indemnify them; the costs order nisi was varied accordingly and the costs of the defendants' summons were ordered on an indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$78,000.
21 Jan 2026

WONG KWAI FA AND ANOTHER v. 陳慶文

Citation

[2026] HKDC 35
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6008/2024

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the withdrawn summary judgment summons because prior correspondence and the defendant's position demonstrated factual disputes (consent to occupy and change of lock) which made summary judgment plainly inappropriate; costs assessed and reduced to a reasonable figure of HK$67,000.00 with a certificate for counsel.
18 Mar 2019

NG KWAI LAN v. LEIGHTON - GAMMON JOINT VENTURE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 351
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1460/2018

The summons for leave to serve interrogatories was unnecessary because the respondent failed to demonstrate that the evidence of advance payments was required under O26 to dispose fairly of the matter or to save costs; the respondent had already made a sanctioned payment and, as the payer of advances, should have possessed the evidence, therefore the respondent must pay the costs of the summons.
22 Dec 2017

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2014

Although the defendant's objections were one week late and need not be taken into account, the court considered them and reduced the time charged by the plaintiff's solicitors by 180 minutes, assessing the reasonable recoverable costs at HK$26,000 (reduced from the HK$38,000 claimed).
14 Nov 2017

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1528/2013

Because the valuer's question and answer session was not completed until 15 August 2017 and it was at least arguable between 18 August and 12 September 2017 that the court-appointed valuation process was not complete, the Companies' summons dated 12 September 2017 was premature; therefore no order as to costs for the costs incurred before 12 September 2017 and specified orders on the amended summons filed 26 October 2017 follow.
24 Aug 2015

KWOK SHUK KUEN MARIA AND ANOTHER v. LI WUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWOK SHUK KUEN MARIA AND ANOTHER v. LI WUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2015

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the subject will was duly executed, that the solicitor had explained the will clause by clause and the deceased understood and approved its contents supported by signed handwritten instructions, that there was no sufficient evidence of undue influence or impaired capacity to rebut the strong presumption from due execution, and therefore affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs; however the Court allowed the costs appeal limited to the passing-over summons, setting aside the judge's costs order and ordering those costs to be paid out of the esta…
30 Jul 2014

SHI LING YEE v. NUMERIC CITY LTD

Citation

SHI LING YEE v. NUMERIC CITY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1347/2013

The summons met the precision required by Order 24 r 7 because the defendant sought disclosure of documents the plaintiff had obtained from the Rating and Valuation Department; the plaintiff's silence to a specific request after the CMC made the summons not unjustified; accordingly costs of the summons were properly awarded to the defendant and the summons was to be withdrawn.
16 Oct 2013

VIDHYA NATIVIVAT AND OTHERS v. VITOON NATIVIVAT

Citation

VIDHYA NATIVIVAT AND OTHERS v. VITOON NATIVIVAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV23/2013

Funds paid into court as security were to be applied first to the specified costs of the proceedings below (HK$324,654); the Court would not order payment out on account of a separate costs order of To J because money paid as security is designated and not plainly money standing to the payer's credit; taxation/assessment is required for appeal costs before payment out; accordingly only HK$324,654 was ordered paid out to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs must pay the Defendant's costs incurred after 17 September 2013.
5 Aug 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL37/2005

The court exercised its discretion: no order as to costs for the interrogation summons (17 March 2009), but awarded the costs of the specification summons (27 April 2009) to the plaintiffs, to be taxed and paid forthwith by the 1st and 2nd defendants on a common fund basis, because the specification summons superseded the interrogation summons and the abandonment of the appeal made the reserved costs ripe for decision.
11 Oct 2001

WONG WAI LAN v. TAM FUNG LAN SANDRA

Citation

WONG WAI LAN v. TAM FUNG LAN SANDRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2704/1998

Costs of the time summons were fixed at HK$800 to be paid by the Defendant to the Third Party under RHC O.62 r.3(4); costs of the summons leading to the hearing should follow the event and were ordered to be paid by the Third Party to the Defendant and fixed at HK$1,000; Defendant's own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.