Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial discretion on costs

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴林智曜又名林偉拳

Citation

[2026] HKDC 130
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC573/2023

The judge exercised discretion to refuse the costs application because the defendant and his legal team engaged in conduct that materially misled the prosecution (withholding that they had contacted a key witness, delaying substantive defences until mid‑trial and using a tactical ambush), causing the prosecution reasonably to overestimate the prospects of conviction; in those circumstances the defendant was not entitled to costs notwithstanding acquittal on counts 1 and 2.
6 Oct 2025

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2020

The judge found the Plaintiff's grounds for appeal unarguable and that the Defendant had reasonable grounds to investigate the validity of the 2019 Will given suspicious circumstances caused by the Deceased and the Plaintiff; the costs order (Plaintiff's costs and 65% of Defendant's costs to be paid from the estate) was a lawful exercise of discretion taking into account relative success, conduct of the parties and the exceptions to costs following the event; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
25 Jun 2025

CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH AND ANOTHER v. HO YUK WAH DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 587
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP210/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospect of success and the judge had lawfully exercised his wide discretion on costs; the judge's factual findings that the liquidators unreasonably opposed the summons justified making personal and indemnity costs orders and warranted refusal of leave; granting leave would be academic and an abuse of process.
6 Jun 2025

CHAU TAT WING, suing in his own capacity and as the sole executor of the estate of WONG TIM LUN, deceased v. WONG KWAI WAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 872
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3244/2022

Both the claim and the 2nd defendant's counterclaim arose from the same issue (the accuracy of the 2012 Survey); the plaintiff's claim was misconceived (including limits on public liability under clause 33 and that the wrong defendant was sued) and the plaintiff's expert failed to prove the 2006 Survey was more accurate; therefore costs arise solely from the plaintiff's chosen dispute and the 2nd defendant is entitled to all costs.
14 Mar 2025

香港特別行政區訴潘永亨

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2390
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA289/2024

The magistrate properly conducted the special‑matters inquiry, accepted PW2’s evidence as credible in light of having seen and heard him, lawfully found the appellant’s admissions to be voluntary, and permissibly considered the appellant’s conduct and admissions as giving rise to self‑incriminatory suspicion that misled the prosecution; absent clear error the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, so the refusal of costs is upheld.
20 Sept 2024

香港特別行政區訴區焯㓻

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3418
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA494/2023

The appellate judge upheld the magistrate's refusal to award costs because, on a rehearing of all evidence, the appellant's behaviour during investigation—carrying a significant knife and a sharp pointed pen in public, walking closely behind pedestrians when foot traffic was light, and asserting 'self‑defence' while denying any mental illness at interview and seeking psychiatric assessment only later—constituted self‑induced suspicion sufficient to justify depriving an acquitted defendant of costs.
25 Jun 2024

NG HON SUM 對 LAM MAN LUNG 及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 943
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO7/2023

The applicant's claims were frivolous, unrelated to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance and constituted an abuse of process; accordingly the exceptions in District Court Ordinance s73B(3) apply and the applicant must pay the first respondent's costs, including the barrister's certificate.
1 Dec 2023

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP554/2022

Fresh expert evidence was excluded because it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial; none of the proposed grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable; the judge's factual findings rejecting the 'black hole' theory, accepting the Duxbury SJE, ordering sale and equal division, and awarding 20% of the Husband's costs on an indemnity basis were within discretionary bounds and not wrong in principle; accordingly all five summonses were dismissed and costs orders were made as detailed.
8 Aug 2023

HKSAR v. PROGIN MARC GERARD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2022

The appellate court found the magistrate had taken into account irrelevant considerations and misanalysed the evidence when awarding costs; objectively the respondent's conduct (going in front of the complainant, closing the door and photographing amid a hostile crowd) brought suspicion on him and justified denying costs; the appeal was therefore allowed and the costs orders set aside.
21 Apr 2023

MIGHTY CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHINA RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1061
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1960/2021

The court exercised its discretion and concluded that costs in the cause would be appropriate on the facts; the costs order nisi was made absolute and the Defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the application in any event because the Defendants were not shown to have acted unreasonably in opposing the cross-examination summons and it would be premature to order otherwise.