Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of taxing master

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

LEE YIN KEUNG JACKY v. LILY FENN & PARTNERS (a firm)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP63/2022

The Decision did not finally determine substantive rights within O.59 r.21(1)(a) because it addressed the procedural impropriety of invoking an appeal rather than deciding the merits of the Master’s rulings; the proper remedy for challenging a taxing master's determinations is the review mechanism under O.62 rr.33-35 after taxation is complete; the defendant's jurisdictional and procedural arguments lacked reasonable prospects of success, but because the point has broader public importance leave to appeal is granted to the Court of Appeal; costs ordered as set out.
3 Sept 2025

LEE YIN KEUNG JACKY v. LILY FENN & PARTNERS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP63/2022

Where a taxing master has been directed by the court to determine issues integral to taxation, including preliminary questions about retainer and liability, those decisions fall within the taxation regime and the statutory review procedure in O.62 rr.33-35 must be followed; an appeal under O.58 was misconceived and the Notice of Appeal and amendment application were dismissed. Masters derive jurisdiction to hear such matters from O.32 r.11 and the court’s directions.
18 Jul 2024

THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES OF THE PROPERTY OF SO CHING WAN v. ASSEN LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4475/2002

The review is dismissed because the Master did not commit reviewable error: the Master’s remit was to tax the bill and not to re-open the Judge’s costs order, no discovery application was before the Master, the liquidator properly acted in a professional capacity and could recover costs on an indemnity basis, and the applicant’s procedural failure to give grounds in time further undermined the review; consequently costs are awarded to the 1st respondent on an indemnity basis.
6 Jun 2014

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP19/2011

The appeal is dismissed because there was no pending appeal or timely application for leave to appeal against the interlocutory orders, the plaintiff failed to show good cause to stay or adjourn taxation, and the taxing master correctly refused to stay taxation which would usurp the judge's or Court of Appeal's jurisdiction; issues on the validity of the Islamic marriage and adoption require expert evidence and trial and are unsuitable for summary disposal.
10 Jan 2012

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD

Citation

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2044/2008

Wah Tong was entitled to file its bills for taxation and the notices were within time by operation of O.62 r.22; the taxing master lacked jurisdiction to revisit the underlying court costs orders; there was undue delay in prosecuting the first bill and a global deduction of 60% of the amount allowed under the first bill is appropriate; itemised deductions were applied to both bills; set-off of any arbitral costs and quantification of reimbursement must await assessment by the arbitrator or resolution of Zebra's pending appeal; request for oral hearing to pursue wasted costs was refused as ina…
29 Aug 2001

GLENDON ROWELL v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

GLENDON ROWELL v. PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT2/2000

Under Hong Kong Order 62 r.33 and r.34 the taxing master has jurisdiction to review his taxation decisions, may admit fresh evidence and exercise all powers available on original taxation, but an objector must in the review application specify the nature and grounds of each objection; absent specific grounds and, where appropriate, fresh evidence, a review will not operate as a mere rehearing of previously advanced arguments.
28 Oct 1999

CHAN SIU LUN v. HUI CHO YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN SIU LUN v. HUI CHO YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI120/1997

The Taxing Master had no power to review or set aside the costs order made by Nguyen J; the judge did not exercise a discretion on costs in the main issue such that section 14(3) of the High Court Ordinance applied, and therefore leave to appeal on that basis was refused; costs of the unsuccessful application before the judge should follow the event.
17 Apr 1996

NG KAM MAN v. R.

Citation

NG KAM MAN v. R.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC83/1994

The court held that r.22 contains a built-in power to extend the period for serving notice of appointment and r.16 authorizes the Taxing Master to grant extensions even after expiry; there is no inconsistency between r.16 and r.22 and trivial or excusable delay does not in itself wholly discharge an order for costs; therefore the Master had jurisdiction to grant a seven-day extension and the appeal is dismissed.