Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretionary costs

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2025

CHAN WAI MAN TONY 對律政司司長

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA16/2025

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable legal question capable of overturning the tribunal's dismissal under s25; the tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and discretion, did not display bias, did not unlawfully deny opportunities to adduce or test evidence, and its costs decision involved no error of principle; even if any arguable issue existed, granting leave would be inappropriate given the claim was plainly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction.
22 Jan 2024

RE GUY KWOK-HUNG LAM

Citation

[2024] HKCA 88
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV393/2021

Leave to appeal was dismissed: there is no general rule that proceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause should as a rule attract indemnity costs; the award of indemnity costs remains a discretionary matter and the facts of this case did not justify indemnity costs (Tor's conduct was not sufficiently egregious).
12 May 2023

THE PUI YING MIDDLE SCHOOL OF HONG KONG v. THE HONG KONG COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN CHINA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1288
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3314/2016

The court exercised its discretion and found the second action (HCA 3314/2016) was the central focus of the trial so that defendants' costs should be apportioned 1/6 to HCA 1991/2016 and 5/6 to HCA 3314/2016; apportionment should not rely on arithmetic or Listing Questionnaire estimates, and the defendants must pay the costs of the apportionment application to the plaintiff on a nisi basis.
1 Jun 2022

吳銳堂對陳志強

Citation

[2022] HKDC 577
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5924/2019

The defendant's statements in the 19 June 2012 letter were made in the course of legitimate committee business and were based on facts the defendant honestly believed; there was no evidence of malice or of a lack of factual basis sufficient to defeat qualified (occasioned) privilege, therefore the defence of qualified privilege succeeds and the plaintiff's defamation claim fails. The court exercises its costs discretion to order the plaintiff to pay 50% of the defendant's costs.
13 Apr 2022

吳毅禮對陳慧恩

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1042
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA7/2022

Leave to appeal refused: the tribunal's findings that the appellant breached her duty of care were open on the evidence, the objective test and res ipsa loquitur were appropriately applied, the claimant's repair choice was reasonable mitigation, and the costs awards were a lawful exercise of tribunal discretion; no legal error or impossibility of the tribunal's fact‑finding was shown.
11 Apr 2022

MEMORAN CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MEI HING MANSION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1028
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the interlocutory injunction was granted on its merits (undertakings addressed only the stay), the judge did not err in treating the plaintiff as the practical winner for costs purposes and in exercising discretion to award costs subject to a modest deduction, and the Order 14 application being unsuccessful did not demonstrate impropriety warranting reversal of the costs order.
28 Jul 2020

COMPETITION COMMISSION v. W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCT 6
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTEA2/2017

The Commission's 14-day delay in applying for leave to appeal costs was not objectively insubstantial or wholly excusable and, having failed to show a real prospect of success on the merits of the costs appeal or sufficient justification for three counsel, the extension of time and leave were refused; costs decisions are discretionary and the Tribunal's refusal of a certificate for three counsel did not amount to an error of principle.
15 Jun 2020

LAU WAI YIN AMY AND ANOTHER v. POON CHUNG KWONG PETER AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP152/2019

The Summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Petitioners failed to show any reasonable prospect of demonstrating that the court's exercise of its discretion on costs was plainly wrong: the court had articulated reasons (including that the Petition was inappropriate once control of the company was regained and that withdrawal was the operative event), the Petitioners obtained no orders against the 1st Respondent, and new arguments raised only on appeal could not be relied on.
17 Apr 2020

LI JING JENNY 對張少慧

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 626
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA767/2018

The application for leave to appeal is refused because the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and there are no other reasons in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; the applicant cannot properly challenge the earlier July judgment in this application and, accordingly, the summons is struck out and costs are awarded to the respondent to be assessed by the court.
6 Mar 2020

香港特別行政區訴黎其豪

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1068
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA447/2019

The judge lawfully exercised discretion by considering the appellant's on‑scene statements, interview record and dashcam footage which collectively showed conduct and ambiguity sufficient to constitute a 'special reason' to refuse costs; there was no misdirection or irrationality in the judge's reasoning and the appeal is dismissed.