Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Interim costs

  • 11 Oct 2023

    吳 對 王

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 207
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14470/2017

    One‑day late filing was excused because delay was minimal and caused no prejudice; permission to appeal was refused because applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or other reasons warranting a hearing and did not show any plainly wrong factual findings; the provisional costs order was varied so respondent may recover party‑and‑party costs only for the trial days after respondent's open offer (trial days 2–4) and, absent agreement, those costs are to be assessed by the court; no separate costs order is made for the two summonses and the provisional costs order will be…

  • 7 May 2019

    吳 對 曾及另一人

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 117
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP140/2016

    The court exercised its discretion to order specific disclosure in part: it found respondents established a prima facie need for documents relevant to applicant's assets and expenditures given unexplained high-value transactions and issues affecting reasonable financial provision; the scope was narrowed to be proportionate (limited time periods and raised transaction threshold to HKD40,000) and targeted documents were ordered accordingly, with costs to be in the cause (provisional).

  • 4 Feb 2019

    WPN v. YKYB

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 33
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3308/2016

    Applying the statutory broad‑brush approach and authorities, the court reduced the petitioner's budgetary items judged excessive, fixed a reasonable maintenance pending suit for the petitioner at HK$32,000 per month (first payment backdated to 1 February 2018, payable monthly thereafter) after finding the respondent, as sole controller of the company, could access corporate funds used for his benefit and therefore had the ability to pay. The court found Currey criteria met for litigation funding but limited the award to a realistic estimate for funding up to the adjourned PTR (not to final de…

  • 2 Jan 2008

    SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MAN LUNG HONG SECURITIES LTD

    Citation
    SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MAN LUNG HONG SECURITIES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1677/2007

    The court held that an interim costs order under Order 62 Rule 9A is a summary fixed amount approximating taxed costs and not a full taxation; such interim costs to be assessed on a party-to-party basis where assets include trust funds; the Defendant's detailed skeleton bill was inappropriate for Rule 9A; the proper interim amount is $156,628 to be paid from the Defendant's assets as part of the administration costs.