Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payment of costs

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2017

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1327/2017

The court dismissed the renewed leave application because the plaintiff failed the threshold of reasonable prospect of success and the judge's discretionary refusals were within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement; procedural non‑compliance justified disregarding further unsolicited submissions; the judge properly required taxation/assessment and imposed a $150,000 cap on the leave indemnity given absence of evidence of higher likely costs; awarding costs to the 5th defendant including indemnity costs and a summary assessment was appropriate in the circumstances.
29 Dec 2014

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2014

The Court dismissed the appeal and held the Recorder did not err in exercising his discretion to order an interim payment of $15,000,000 by the administrator. On the solicitor and own client basis agreed for taxation, the estate's size and complexity, the long delay, available funds and the rough‑and‑ready approach justified the interim payment; the prior $10,000,000 did not preclude the interim award and the plaintiffs' objections about excess and new evidence did not demonstrate an erroneous exercise of discretion.
21 Feb 2014

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP593/2007

Amendment of the summons was permitted and an interim payment of HK$15,000,000 was ordered to be paid by the 1st plaintiff because the 1st plaintiff did not oppose the application, the claimed fees were large (HK$40M), taxation was likely to be protracted with substantial interest already accrued, interveners could obtain recourse in the event of overpayment, and no abuse of process or estoppel barred the interlocutory relief; the court applied the principle that third-party taxation is governed by the same jurisdictional limits as solicitor-client taxation (Tim Martin).
18 Dec 2009

RE HAWKINS DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

RE HAWKINS DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW215/2007

There is a procedural lacuna because the new Order 62 rules 21-21C do not provide for interim payment of costs from security in non-interlocutory proceedings; the court may fill that lacuna by exercising its inherent jurisdiction when just and equitable and not inconsistent with the rules. On the facts (undisputed liabilities exceeded sums paid in, no appeal filed, provisional taxation directed) it was just and equitable to order the total amount paid into court with accrued interest to be paid out to the Company in part satisfaction of costs and to order the petitioner to pay the Company's c…
18 Sept 2008

INTELLIGENT HOUSE LTD v. CHAN TUNG SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

INTELLIGENT HOUSE LTD v. CHAN TUNG SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS11000/2006

The Tribunal held costs should, as a matter of principle, follow the event; China Superior must pay Intelligent House's costs confined to the legal contentions and rebuttal expert evidence it raised (to be taxed at High Court Scale with certificate for two counsel); the Tribunal has jurisdiction under O 62 r 9A to order an interim payment at the conclusion of proceedings where it is just to do so and there is a genuine risk of dissipation, and on the facts an interim payment of HK$1,983,418 was ordered; the Tribunal does not have power under s 4(6)(a)(iii) to direct trustees to pay proceeds t…
31 Mar 2008

MA PO CHIM, PERCY v. GOCK PING, JAMES AND OTHERS

Citation

MA PO CHIM, PERCY v. GOCK PING, JAMES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3253/2004

Interim payment was ordered because Horwath reasonably incurred solicitors' fees while performing court-directed duties, the opposing allegations were vague and unpersuasive, and there was no reason to believe Horwath could not make restitution if necessary; therefore exceptional circumstances justified interim payment of the specified untaxed bills.
10 Apr 2007

NEWMARK CAPITAL CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS v. COFFEE PARTNERS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEWMARK CAPITAL CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS v. COFFEE PARTNERS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1271/2006

The court held that the factors advanced by the plaintiffs, individually or cumulatively, did not make it just to order an interim payment under Order 62 r 9A(b); the procedural objections to form and timing were either rejected or treated as waived/covered by an exercise of discretion, and on costs the defendants were awarded 90% of their costs to be taxed if not agreed.
7 Nov 2006

RE MAINTAIN PROFITS LTD

Citation

RE MAINTAIN PROFITS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW345/2002

Where no winding-up order was made and management has been re-vested in the directors, the companies (and other interested parties) who would bear payment of provisional liquidators' fees are entitled to be heard inter partes on taxation; the Procedural Guide does not oust the court's power to direct participation; interim payments may be ordered but the court will exercise discretion to reduce potential exposure (BF reduced from 70% to 50%); an order making provisional liquidators personally liable for costs will be set aside absent blameworthy conduct, and costs should be paid from company…
23 Sept 2004

RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

RE WING FAI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW735/2002

The respondent liquidator was entitled to recover any shortfall in his costs out of the Company\u2019s assets because the complaints arose from acts done in discharge of his duties as liquidator; the committal proceedings were misconceived with no reasonable prospect of success; indemnity costs were appropriate and just in the circumstances; the Official Receiver was entitled only to party and party costs; and an interim payment of HK$1,330,644.84 was justified and ordered.
3 Sept 2002

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD

Citation

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16440/1998

The application to adduce further evidence and to re‑open the case was dismissed because the matter had been finally determined by the Court of Final Appeal and could not be re‑opened; the defendant's summons for an interim payment of costs in the sum of $500,000 was allowed as reasonable in light of the bill of costs, with costs to be taxed if not agreed.