20 Jun 2022
The court exercised its summary assessment powers to reduce excessive costs in respect of a procedural appeal, allowing solicitors' fees of $50,000 and counsel's fees of $50,000 and summarily assessing the Defendant's costs at $100,000.
23 Mar 2021
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the plaintiff’s District Court claim in detinue/conversion was not an abuse of process because there was no earlier dispute or adjudication of ownership and the defendant had not indicated an intention to litigate in the Family Court before the claim; while the Family Court has jurisdiction over the Gifts, the plaintiff was not obliged to seek ancillary relief; the District Court action was stayed as a case management measure pending any ancillary relief application by the defendant, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the plaintiff.
17 Jul 2020
The plaintiff failed the prima facie requirement because the proposed psychiatric expert evidence would not materially add to the existing medical records (KCH notes, Form 9), the joint orthopaedic report and Dr Chung's note which already diagnose and attribute causes; causation turns on whether the accident aggravated a pre-existing orthopaedic condition, a matter resolvable from the existing orthopaedic evidence; the application was also significantly delayed without reasonable explanation and the likely cost of the additional expert would be disproportionate to any likely increase in quant…
26 Jan 2015
Judge ordered immediate sale of the two remaining properties and application of their net sale proceeds together with the HK$10 million held with the husband's mother (Camelot proceeds) to discharge the parties' debts and liabilities; any surplus after debts to be divided equally between the parties under the sharing principle; costs due to the husband and his mother to be set off against the Wifes share; child maintenance fixed at HK$25,000 per month; clean break and dismissal of further financial claims; each party to bear own costs (order nisi).
17 May 2007
The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the plaintiffs' application for security for costs because the amount sought was grossly exaggerated and disproportionate to the likely costs of the application for leave to the Court of Final Appeal, had taken up valuable court time and lacked adequate justification; the court did not decide the jurisdictional point as it was unnecessary given the exercise of discretion.
26 Mar 2002
The court adjourned the interpleader summons to allow the 1st claimant to apply for third party discovery within a fixed short period because of a real risk of injustice from allegedly removed documents; in the interim the court released the generator into the custody of the 2nd claimant (on conditions including prohibition on use and disclosure of storage location) because the 2nd claimant presently had the stronger paper case, and ordered costs of the hearing to be costs in the summons with a certificate for counsel.