Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Court discretion on costs

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2025

釋照月 v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3015
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP496/2017

The court granted the 9‑month extension of HKBA's appointment, pegged to the date the BAO is sanctioned or, if later, nine months from the order, because HKBA proved the extension was reasonable given the work required and the appeals context. The Taxation Summons was dismissed because time to commence taxation had not begun to run as the Costs Order was a nisi order and related proceedings and appeals remained extant. Costs of the Taxation Summons were ordered against Jan and Pong and summarily assessed at HK$5,000; no order as to costs for the Extension Summons.
23 Aug 2023

LAM YEE HUNG v. CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA764/2015

The court held it was not unjust to apply O22 r24(3): the sanctioned offer's terms were unimpeached, it was made near trial when the defendant was sufficiently informed, and the defendant's decision to ignore the offer meant it accepted the risk of adverse costs consequences; the defendant's pending appeal does not defeat the costs variation determination.
1 Aug 2023

CHEUNG YUEN LAN on behalf of herself and the other dependents of ABDUL WAHED, deceased v. ROTH & SONS ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1000
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1304/2015

The court dismissed the TP Proceedings and applied the separability principle: costs follow the event so Ds must pay TP's costs (party and party) because Ds failed to show exceptional circumstances to deprive TP of costs; Ps abandoned dubious main claims and therefore Ps must pay Ds' costs of the Main Actions on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel; a direct/cut‑through order making Ps pay TP directly was not supported by authority and was refused.
31 May 2023

香港特別行政區訴陳穎暉

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA328/2020

Court held it was lawful and proper to make a two‑year supervision and treatment order despite an existing hospital conditional release because a court order affords different and more effective enforcement and public protection; and the judge properly exercised discretion to refuse costs because the appellant's non‑compliance with medication and inconsistent statements invited suspicion and the acquittal was effectively technical, justifying deprivation of costs.
23 Feb 2022

劉靜文 v. 林鄭月娥特別行政區首長 AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 571
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1538/2021

The applicant did not cross the threshold required for leave to apply for judicial review and the proposed amendments would not change that outcome; therefore both the application to amend Form 86 and the application for leave were refused and the court made no order as to costs.
21 Jan 2022

LAW YIN POK BOSCO, a minor by LAM PO YEE, his mother and next friend v. DR. CHAN YEE SHING also known as DR. CHAN YEE SHING ALVIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2256/2012

Because the defendant pursued taxation against the parents despite the Director's clear offer to meet costs and repeated pragmatic Waiver Proposals from the parents, and because the defendant continued to press the Summons without proper sense of proportion in the face of an available route to recover the costs, the defendant's conduct was sufficiently unreasonable and oppressive to justify indemnity costs: the defendant must pay the parents’ costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis and the parents’ costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis for costs incurred after 6 October 2020 (with earl…
1 Mar 2021

GILBERT HENRY COLLINS v. ALAN LAM, YAM & PE (A FIRM)

Citation

[2021] HKDC 157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1555/2019

The court varied the costs order nisi because the plaintiff unreasonably raised and pursued the Collateral Application in a manner that wasted court resources and contradicted his own pleadings, so that justice required the defendant to recover the costs of the remainder of the O 14A Summons with certificate for counsel to be summarily assessed on paper; the plaintiff's conduct and the objectives of the rules justified the adverse costs order.
24 Dec 2019

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1452
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/2015

The court exercised its discretion to award party-and-party costs because the interim payment application was for the sole benefit of Waddington and was not a necessary part of performing duties for the Company; absent evidence that Thomas Chan still controlled the Company, the Company was entitled to oppose the application and the indemnity principle did not apply to the interim payment.
15 Jun 2018

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. CHEN JIANHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1358
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2482/2014

The court exercised its discretion: no order as to costs for the matters confirmed on Registrar Lung's decisions and for the withdrawal of the cross-appeal, but ordered that the costs of and incidental to the Payment-in limb of the defendants' summons, both before the Registrar and in this Court, be paid to the defendants; no enhanced or wasted costs order was made.
11 Apr 2017

HUSSAIN KAMRAN v. KHAN, AMAR formerly t/a THREE STAR RECYCLING CO (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUSSAIN KAMRAN v. KHAN, AMAR formerly t/a THREE STAR RECYCLING CO (A FIRM) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV255/2014

The application to amend the Costs Order was refused because the existing order made defendants jointly and severally liable and, under general law, the 2nd defendant may seek contribution (normally limited to 50%); the 2nd defendant's intervention increased the plaintiff's costs and does not justify a court-ordered full indemnity absent special reasons.