13 May 2025
All summonses for leave to appeal, extension of time and stays were dismissed because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success (and where relevant the higher threshold for inexcusable delay was not addressed); summary judgment and costs orders below were upheld and no interim stay granted.
13 May 2025
The judge held that none of the proposed grounds of appeal showed a reasonable prospect of success; Chow was not established on the pleaded case to be a trustee de son tort or within clause 17; forum non conveniens factors and the existence of a third‑party claim justified the court's exercise of discretion to refuse a stay and to hear the matters in Hong Kong; summary judgment was properly entered because the Trustees failed to advance substantive defences on affidavit; accordingly leave to appeal, extension of time and stays were refused and the summonses dismissed.
6 Dec 2024
The Costs Order Nisi was varied to no order as to costs because both parties only succeeded on small fractions of their respective claims with no significant disparity; the Plaintiff's primary case failed and its alternative success depended on the Defendant's concessions and an opposing schedule; both parties contributed to the extended trial by introducing late evidence and neither took steps to mitigate its impact; therefore denying costs to both parties proportionately reflects the outcome and conduct.
17 Jul 2024
The Court exercised its costs discretion to partially vary the nisi order: the Building Authority must pay the Applicants' costs of the judicial review and the Applicants' legal representatives' attendance on the day of the Preliminary Hearing (to be taxed if not agreed); all other costs occasioned by the Preliminary Hearing remain reserved to the Appeal Tribunal to be dealt with as part of the costs of the appeals; no order as to the costs of the variation application.
26 Feb 2024
The joinder summons was unmeritorious and time-barred; the plaintiff had constructive knowledge and unreasonably delayed and failed to make timely enquiries; the plaintiff unreasonably persisted after a WP offer to withdraw; joinder conferred no practical benefit; therefore indemnity costs are appropriate and the costs order nisi is varied to award indemnity costs as sought.
12 Jul 2023
Exceptional circumstances existed: the respondent adopted an unreasonable and unsustainable financial stance, changed position after trial, and the petitioner has suffered significant depletion of capital risking the children's welfare; accordingly it is justifiable to depart from the usual 'no costs' rule and order the respondent to pay a substantial proportion of costs (75% of relocation costs and 50% of the variation application costs).
7 Oct 2022
Given D1's intentional non-compliance with court orders and the incredible nature of his sworn explanations, the court exercised its broad discretion over costs, varied Part 1 of the Costs Order Nisi and ordered D1 to pay two‑thirds of the Plaintiff's Judgment Summons costs on an indemnity basis (to be summarily assessed together with the Relief Summons costs and paid forthwith); additionally D1 must pay the costs of the variation application on a party-and-party basis with one counsel; summary assessment to be conducted on the papers with specified filing timelines.
12 Aug 2022
Because the Ad Hoc Committee played an active and substantial role in opposing the Garnishee Application and stood to benefit from the outcome, it is liable for the costs of the Garnishee Application in addition to D1 bearing the costs of all three applications; limited volume of filings and partial success did not negate that liability.
8 Nov 2021
The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the defendant failed to show that the plaintiff acted dishonestly or unreasonably to a degree warranting departure from the general rule that costs follow the event; the defendant could have protected her costs position by making a sanctioned payment, the main contested issues concerned liability not quantum, the alleged delay did not demonstrably cause additional costs and the defendant did not progress the action, and certificate for counsel was justified given expert evidence.
13 May 2021
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2): the court retained jurisdiction after directions from the docket judge; the contested costs orders were non-controversial and not amenable to variation simply because the respondent changed his mind; paper disposal during the pandemic did not deprive the respondent of a hearing; no other interests of justice warrant granting leave.