Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-party costs orders

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2024

TOP INTEGRATED GROUP LTD v. ZHENGTAN HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW109/2024

The court exercised its s.52A jurisdiction to join Mr Wong for costs and ordered him to pay the Petitioners' costs of the Companies' opposition to the Continuation Summonses from 27 Feb 2024 and the Discharge Summonses on an indemnity basis because the evidence in the PLs Decision established he was substantially involved and would benefit if the Appointment Orders were set aside; the court further ordered a wasted costs indemnity against KBCC for acting without proper authority, ignoring detailed warnings and failing to obtain or produce counsel advice, such conduct causing wasted costs.
28 Oct 2024

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1707/2018

On the facts the court found Kwok had steered and funded HJI's litigation while adopting a conscious approach to avoid adverse costs exposure and that HETCL and IIPDL were his funding vehicles; the conduct evidenced questionable bona fides amounting to engagement in risk-free litigation for his purposes so that it was just and reasonable to join them for costs only and make a nisi non-party costs order that they be jointly and severally liable for the defendants' costs (certificate for two counsel) with directions for summary assessment.
28 Oct 2024

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. NG CHIU KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2835/2018

The court concluded on the summary materials that Kwok, through his control and funding arrangements (including proofs of debt signed by him/their agents), steered HJI's litigation while consciously avoiding liability for adverse costs (defaulting on ordered security for costs) and demonstrated a mindset of pursuing risk‑free litigation; that conduct rendered him the real party and cast doubt on bona fides such that it was just and reasonable to join Kwok, HETCL and IIPDL for costs and to make a nisi joint and several non‑party costs order against them, with procedural steps for taxation and…
27 Feb 2023

HYDROTECH WATERPROOFING SOLUTIONS LTD v. SHUN YUEN CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 601
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT44/2020

The court held that McKee and Mo should not be made personally liable because there was no clear evidence of mala fide conduct or that they acted for their own personal benefit rather than for their companies; however Hop Shing Engineering & Construction Co Limited (HS) was properly joined for costs and ordered to pay jointly and severally with the Plaintiff because evidence showed HS funded the litigation, had a profit-sharing arrangement entitling it to recover about HKD 3,000,000 and therefore stood to benefit and was a real party to the litigation. Consequently the Plaintiffs (including H…
2 May 2019

NG YUK PUI KELLY v. DUNG WAI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1826/2011

Although the children actively participated, provided some funding and their evidence was material and in parts false, the judge found Mrs Ng was the real party who controlled the defence; the children were motivated by filial duty and were prejudiced by lack of an early costs warning. Balancing the factors and exercising discretion under s52A(2), it was not in the interests of justice to order the children to pay Kelly's costs; consequently no costs order was made against the 4th‑6th defendants, but joinder and the enquiry were justified and the children were not awarded costs of the enquiry.
6 Jul 2018

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

Leave refused because the Plaintiff's proposed grounds of appeal do not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and there is no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeals; the court properly exercised discretion to refuse further disclosure (to avoid collateral/satellite litigation and because disclosure against paying companies sufficed for preservation) and correctly resolved the taxation/indemnity issues as set out in its prior written decisions.
29 Jul 2016

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI ENTERPRISE CO LTD

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI ENTERPRISE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA886/2007

It was not plain and obvious that the joinder applications were an abuse of process; therefore Mr Lee is joined as a party to HCA 1957/2005, HCA 714/2007 and HCA 886/2007 for the purpose of costs under s52A and Order 62 r6A, but the Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction to make a non-party costs order in respect of costs incurred in proceedings before the Court of Appeal, so the application relating to the Appeals is dismissed; directions were given for pleadings and costs on a nisi basis pending the second-stage hearing.
29 Jul 2016

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD v. WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1957/2005

At the first-stage the court concluded it was not plain and obvious that the joinder applications were an abuse of process despite delay, lack of prior warning and some prejudice; therefore Mr Lee was to be joined to the three High Court actions for the purpose of considering non-party costs orders, but the CFI lacks jurisdiction to make non-party costs orders in respect of costs incurred in proceedings before the Court of Appeal, so joinder in relation to the Appeals was dismissed.
29 Jul 2016

WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD

Citation

WU YI DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA714/2007

It was not plain and obvious that the joinder applications were an abuse of process; therefore Mr Lee is to be joined at the first stage as a party to the three High Court actions for the purpose of costs so he may be heard on the substantive non-party costs applications, but the CFI lacks jurisdiction to make non-party costs orders in respect of proceedings before the Court of Appeal and those applications are dismissed.
11 Nov 2015

SUPER SPEED LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA

Citation

SUPER SPEED LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. BANK OF BARODA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW273/2012

Joinder of Grand Tai and the liquidators for costs purposes granted; costs order granted against Grand Tai as the self‑interested funder on the basis of its funding agreement and ability to control/benefit from the litigation; no personal costs order against the joint and several liquidators because their conduct did not demonstrate impropriety or hopelessness and the Bank failed to protect itself by promptly seeking security for costs; accordingly it is not just to make JSL personally liable.