Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nisi costs order

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2026

MA MAN CHUN and MA MAN KAM, the Administratrices of the Estate of FOCK KAM CHAU, Deceased v. FU KA ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1980
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI272/2020

The nisi costs order was varied: plaintiffs must pay defendants the costs of and occasioned by the originating summons for leave to amend (excluding defendants’ costs of the hearing and preparation); plaintiffs must also pay costs of and occasioned by the amendments; costs of preparing the joint statement up to date are in the cause; plaintiffs’ own costs taxed per legal aid rules; defendants are deprived of their costs of the substantive hearing and preparation and will pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the variation application (nisi) to be taxed on the usual basis; costs to be taxed if not agre…
1 Apr 2026

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

Citation

[2026] HKDC 460
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2019

The applications were dismissed because the leave application was procedurally defective and failed the substantive merit threshold for an arguable appeal, the Claimant did not adduce adequate evidence of serious deleterious effect to justify a stay or variation of the costs order, the Respondent's submissions were not out of time and any prejudice was minimal, and costs were properly summarily assessed and ordered against the Claimant on a nisi basis.
11 Jul 2025

釋照月 v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3015
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP496/2017

The court granted the 9‑month extension of HKBA's appointment, pegged to the date the BAO is sanctioned or, if later, nine months from the order, because HKBA proved the extension was reasonable given the work required and the appeals context. The Taxation Summons was dismissed because time to commence taxation had not begun to run as the Costs Order was a nisi order and related proceedings and appeals remained extant. Costs of the Taxation Summons were ordered against Jan and Pong and summarily assessed at HK$5,000; no order as to costs for the Extension Summons.
16 May 2025

LEUNG KAM v. MAX WEALTH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI90/2021

Costs were to be taxed on the High Court scale because, on the evidence reasonably available before commencement (including the first joint orthopaedic report), the plaintiff had a justified basis to bring the action in the High Court and could not be taken to have lacked a reasonable prospect of recovering above District Court jurisdiction; defendants had raised their position early and extension of time for their summons was granted but did not change the appropriate scale of taxation.
29 Feb 2024

CHIU SUI CHING, the administrator of the estate of LEUNG HO TIN, deceased v. CHENG KWAI HUNG t/a HANG NAGI WORKS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 635
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI939/2017

The court varied the 2023 Nisi Costs Order so that the benefit of the costs under that order belongs to MPC personally rather than to the plaintiff, on the basis that MPC personally incurred the costs of resisting the challenged applications and that indemnity-scale costs were considered only where justified by abuse or other special features (not conclusively granted on available text).
17 Nov 2021

UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION TIGER RESORT ASIA LTD v. KAZUO OKADA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3432
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2236/2019

The summons was dismissed because the defendant was significantly dilatory in seeking variation (no justifiable reason for the 8- and 6-month delays), failed to provide evidential support of financial hardship, and could not validly seek variation of the sealed September Costs Order (functus officio); on the merits the balance of discretionary factors did not favour immediate taxation of costs.
7 Jan 2021

AIG INSURANCE HONG KONG LTD v. LYNN MCCULLOUGH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 41
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2216/2018

The court exercised its discretion to vary the nisi costs order and ordered that the costs of the application for leave to appeal be in the cause because the permitted grounds were sufficiently dispositive and central to the hearing that success on them would likely dispose of the matter, the other grounds were not frivolous, and the allocation of costs should reflect the focus and likely outcome of the appeal.
3 Aug 2016

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN

Citation

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1155/2008

The court allowed the plaintiff's hourly rate at HK$2,600 as reasonable for a solicitor with 10+ years' PQE, disallowed the supplemental list of authorities and associated copying and attendances, reduced claimed times for preparation, research, perusal and preparation for hearing to reasonable amounts (affirmation 3 hrs, skeleton 4 hrs, list of authorities 0.5 hr, research 2 hrs, perusal 6 hrs, preparation 2 hrs) and assessed the plaintiff's costs of the defendant's summons at HK$61,430; the defendant's challenge to the costs order on the basis of the plaintiff's earlier mistake was rejected…
26 Jun 2015

HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD v. HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD

Citation

HONG KONG BROADBAND NETWORK LTD v. HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9172/2000

The court concluded that the blanket order that parties bear their own costs produced a potential imbalance; exercising its discretion under O.62 r.3 and having regard to the parties' respective conduct and the chronology of steps taken, the nisi costs order was varied so that HKBN pays HKCTV's costs of the action and HKCTV's strike-out summons of 29 March 2012, and HKCTV pays HKBN's costs of the counterclaim and HKBN's strike-out summons of 19 December 2012, with costs reserved and to be taxed if not agreed; HKCTV also awarded 80% of its costs of the present application on a nisi basis.
25 Jun 2015

ALLIED SUCCESS CREATION LTD v. CHEUNG HON KUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

ALLIED SUCCESS CREATION LTD v. CHEUNG HON KUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA451/2010

Yeung succeeded and there was no proven pre-action or litigation conduct by her that fairly induced Allied Success to sue her; therefore she is entitled to her costs. Although adverse findings were made against the other defendants and disgorgement/compensation was awarded (including profit of HK$4,500,000 and market value based damages), those remedies restored Allied Success and, absent separate improper conduct in the litigation itself, do not justify an additional indemnity costs order. Accordingly the nisi costs order is made absolute and Allied Success must pay the costs of the variatio…