Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretion to refuse costs

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. CHAN HO

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3512
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA182/2021

The Magistrate's refusal to award costs was not justified on the basis that the appellant 'brought suspicion on himself' because the evidence underlying the acquittals (doubts as to PW1's credibility and acceptance that the appellant's stated intent to scare rather than injure was plausible) did not support a finding sufficient to deny costs without undermining the presumption of innocence; appeal allowed.
26 May 2021

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC116/2018

The court refused the costs applications because, on the evidence and conduct of each accused (provision of contacts and emails, use of bank accounts in money circulation, appearance on corporate documents, simultaneous defaults, selective silence or late explanation), each had brought suspicion upon himself and/or misled the prosecution such that depriving them of costs was justified despite acquittal.
20 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. LI SEE MING ALVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI SEE MING ALVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA620/2004

Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal; magistrate erred by failing to consider all relevant matters including the appellant's conduct in the investigation and his successful refutation of a false allegation; balancing the magistrate's adverse findings about defence credibility with the prosecution's failure, the correct exercise of discretion entitles the appellant to one half of his trial costs, limited by statute to $30,000.
14 Feb 2003

HKSAR v. CHENG YIU HAU

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG YIU HAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1162/2002

The magistrate had admissible evidence that the appellant's answers in his cautioned statement were inaccurate in ways that could reasonably have misled the prosecution and brought suspicion upon him; that evidence supported the magistrate's exercise of discretion to refuse defence costs and there was no sufficient basis for appellate interference.
27 Sept 1999

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV344/1998

Although the respondent succeeded on appeal, the court exercised its discretion to refuse an order for costs because the respondent's prior acquiescence and failure to challenge the original judgment had encouraged the appeals and the respondent's success was due to the court's view of the lower court's judgment rather than the respondent's arguments, rendering an award of costs inappropriate in the exceptional circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHAN HO

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LI SEE MING ALVIN

HKSAR v. CHENG YIU HAU

TONG TIM NUI AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY