Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of costs orders

Legal area

Court

18 Jan 2022

LAW PO YEE AND ANOTHER v. DR CHAN YEE SHING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI62/2011

Where a costs order is ambiguous, the court may consult the contemporaneous exchange between the judge and counsel to ascertain the intended scope; on the facts the 2012 Costs Order should be read as referring to costs of the application that day (and solicitors' costs were intended given pro bono appearance by counsel); and the allowance of one hour to consider a 48‑page RRSoD was reasonable and will be maintained; the review is dismissed.
12 Nov 2021

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YIU HOI YING CHARLES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 41
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV38/2017

The taxing authority has power to interpret a costs order and to apportion liability between multiple payers where warranted; the general rule that costs against multiple losing parties are joint and several is only a starting point and may be displaced by special circumstances. Applying those principles, the Registrar held that appellate and leave costs (Court of Appeal and CFA) were properly regarded as common legal questions and R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable for those costs, but MMT inquiry costs contain common, mixed and individual items and Bill No.3 (MMT costs) should be ta…
12 Nov 2021

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YIU HOI YING CHARLES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 41
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV5/2018

The Registrar held that the taxing master does have the power to apportion a costs order that is silent on apportionment but the established starting point is that liability will be joint and several where parties ran a common case; applying those principles, costs relating to the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal (and leave stages) are joint and several as the respondents ran the same legal case, whereas MMT inquiry costs contain common items and some items that properly require apportionment; R1's application to amend to achieve a 50/50 split was refused except to permit limited app…
27 Nov 2020

LAM SIK SHI v. LAM SIK YING, Administrator of the Estate of Lam Tim alias Stan Lam Tim, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1605/2004

The court held the Taxing Master did not err in principle in apportioning Bill of Costs #8 between the defendants: the trial judge did not make an express joint and several costs order, the taxing master has the discretion to apportion costs item-by-item between defendants, and there was no basis to read a joint and several liability into the judge's costs order; therefore the plaintiff's application to review the taxation was dismissed.
24 Jul 2014

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD t/a DANDELION FINE ARTS v. CHELESA ART COMPANY LTD

Citation

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD t/a DANDELION FINE ARTS v. CHELESA ART COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1636/2010

The court held the costs order unambiguously awarded two-thirds of the costs of the appeals to the defendant; the plaintiff's contrary interpretation was rejected. The defendant was entitled to present six separate statements as a proper breakdown and objections as to quantum should be addressed at summary assessment. Consequently the costs of the present hearing were awarded to the defendant and directions were given for lodging statements and objections.
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2009

The application to amend was refused because the Taiwan conviction and judgment are inadmissible for the purposes sought under the long-established Hollington principle (not displaced by O'Brien), there was no valid waiver or estoppel by Mr Hu, the Court of Appeal costs orders are unambiguous in Hu's favour, and the Plaintiff's application was in any event unduly delayed; accordingly leave to amend was refused and costs awarded to the 4th defendant.
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV351/2008

The applications to amend were dismissed: the Taiwan conviction and judgment were inadmissible for the purposes sought under the Hollington principle as applied in Hong Kong (not displaced by O'Brien), waiver/estoppel arguments failed, the Court of Appeal costs orders were clear and not ambiguous or slipped, and the applications were unreasonably late; accordingly leave to amend was refused and costs awarded to the 4th Defendant.
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV352/2008

The Master refused the plaintiff's applications to amend the lists of objections. He held that the Taiwan criminal conviction and judgment were inadmissible and irrelevant under the Hollington principle as applied in Hong Kong (section 62 of the Evidence Ordinance only modifies admissibility for Hong Kong convictions under strict conditions); O'Brien did not displace the Hollington rule in the circumstances alleged; waiver and estoppel arguments failed; the Court of Appeal costs orders, properly construed, entitled Mr Hu to the costs claimed; the plaintiff's application was also barred by unj…
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2008

The court held that the Taiwan conviction and judgment are inadmissible and irrelevant for the purpose of taxation of costs under the authority of Hollington v Hewthorn as applied in Hong Kong; OBrien did not displace that principle in the circumstances; waiver/estoppel arguments failed; the Court of Appeal costs orders were plain and entitled the 4th defendant to the costs; the Plaintiff's amendment application was both substantively unfounded and unacceptably delayed and therefore the applications to amend were dismissed and costs were awarded to the 4th defendant.
9 Nov 2010

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV208/2008

Master de Souza denied the Plaintiff's applications to amend because the Taiwan conviction and judgment are inadmissible and irrelevant to taxation under the Hollington principle; Plaintiff failed to show relevance under O'Brien; there was no waiver or estoppel; the Court of Appeal costs orders are unambiguous in favour of the 4th defendant; and the application was unjustifiably late and prejudicial. Accordingly amendments refused and costs awarded to the 4th defendant.