Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Offer to settle

  • 20 Nov 2024

    史超 v. 均富有限公司 AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1909
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5015/2017

    The application was allowed because the plaintiff failed to prove it would be unjust to apply the default rule in O.22 r.23: the sanctioned payment was served in time, the plaintiff and his adviser had sufficient information and time to consider it, the plaintiff gave no evidence and did not contest the application, and the plaintiff's conduct (including withholding the sale of the premises) justified awarding costs from 30 August 2023 on an indemnity basis, imposing enhanced interest at 2% above judgment rate on costs and releasing the sanctioned payment to the 2nd defendant.

  • 4 Sept 2023

    楊艷娥 對 保良局第一張永慶中學

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1171
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC101/2012

    Order 22 rule 23 applies because the applicant obtained judgments far inferior to the sanctioned payments and there was no injustice in making the rule 23 orders; therefore the applicant must pay respondent's costs on an indemnity basis from 9 August 2014 (DCEC 101) and from 6 December 2017 (DCEC 1528) until the judgment date 27 April 2022, and those costs shall bear interest at the judgment rate plus 2%; sanctioned payments shall be disbursed to the applicant for the awarded compensation and remaining balances returned to the respondent subject to the legal aid first charge and related agree…

  • 29 May 2023

    BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1396
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1861/2017

    Court varied the costs order nisi: defendants awarded 60% of their costs on a party and party basis up to and including 14 March 2019 (expert costs excluded); defendants awarded 80% of their costs on an indemnity basis from 15 March 2019 to 12 December 2022 (expert costs excluded); interest at 6% p.a. from 15 March 2019 to 12 December 2022; no order as to costs of the application. The variation was justified because the plaintiff failed to do better than the sanctioned payment, RHC Order 22 r.23 prima facie applied, and the court exercised discretion considering reasonableness, public interes…

  • 15 Nov 2022

    EMAGIST ENTERTAINMENT LTD v. NETHER GAMES (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHES

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3471
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1659/2012

    The court refused indemnity costs because the ARTSE Parties' conduct, while ultimately unsuccessful on certain issues, was not shown to be dishonest, scandalous or disgraceful to the degree required for indemnity costs; the Emagist Offer improperly sought an unequivocal waiver of all future claims which the ARTSE Parties were justified in preserving; a certificate for two counsel was not justified; accordingly the order nisi was made absolute with all costs to be taxed on a party-to-party basis and the costs of the paper application awarded to the ARTSE Parties.

  • 1 Mar 2021

    BANK OF INDIA v. GIMAJASA LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 521
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1956/2017

    Plaintiff must pay costs on party-and-party basis to 17 October 2018 and on indemnity basis from 18 October 2018 to date of judgment because the 4th defendant made a sanctioned payment that plaintiff unreasonably refused to accept; enhanced interest at 8% p.a. on recoverable costs from 18 October 2018 to date of payment is justified by plaintiff's withholding of crucial evidence, refusal to mediate and unreasonable continuation of the claim, but reduced from a notional 15% to 8% to reflect that the bulk of costs were not incurred at the outset.

  • 17 Nov 2020

    CHEUNG SAU LIN 對 TSUI WAH EFFORD MANAGEMENT LTD

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2892
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI505/2017

    Applying Order 22 r23 to the facts — the defendant had made a sanctioned payment early in the litigation, the plaintiff failed to obtain a result better than that payment at trial, the plaintiff had access to expert evidence well before the assessment hearing, and the plaintiff produced no evidential basis to resist the variation — it was not unjust to vary the provisional costs order. The court therefore made the costs order absolute, allocated interest up to 11 July 2017 only for the plaintiff's award, directed distribution of the sanctioned payment (HK$61,443.68 to plaintiff via Direct…

  • 4 Jun 2020

    WONG GILES v. DONOWHO SIMON CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 1053
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI1046/2014

    Given the plaintiff's dishonest and offensive conduct in prosecuting the claim, his non-acceptance of defendants' settlement offer and the sanctioned payment, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the action (excluding D1's counterclaim for now and including reserved costs) on an indemnity basis; refused enhanced interest for pre-Cutoff Date costs (ordinary interest only) but awarded enhanced interest at 10% above the judgment rate on costs incurred post Cutoff Date from 18 October 2019 to payment; allowed plaintiff's summons in relation to late disclosure of Noise Log S…

  • 22 Oct 2019

    CHENG KWING YEUNG v. HONG KONG HAM HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    [2019] HKDC 1386
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI736/2011

    The court refused to apply sanctions under O 22 r 23 because the proper comparison is between the defendant's total offered settlement (HK$672,764.62 as stated in the Notice) and the Judgment Sum (HK$680,633) which favoured the plaintiff, and because the defendant failed to disclose or clarify material information about the EC Sum used for the offer, depriving the plaintiff of the ability to evaluate the offer; accordingly the summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed.

  • 10 Jan 2019

    ARNOLD ROBERT LTD v. GLORIOUS MOTORS LTD

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 91
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA950/2014

    Rule 24 was engaged because the plaintiff obtained a judgment more advantageous than the sanctioned offer and it was not unjust to apply rule 24; accordingly the court varied its earlier orders by enhancing interest on the judgment sum to 4% above the judgment rate from 15 April 2015, awarding costs before that date on a party‑to‑party District Court scale and costs on/after that date on an indemnity District Court scale, with specified interest on those costs, and awarding costs of the application to the plaintiff.

  • 14 Feb 2017

    YIM WAI LING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN CHIK WAH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    YIM WAI LING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN CHIK WAH AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ663/2013

    Sanctioned payments/offers that include a term depriving a plaintiff of the entitlement to costs under O.22 r.20(1) are inconsistent with the mechanism of Order 22 and therefore do not validly attract the consequences of O.22 r.23; exercising discretion under O.22 r.2(4) was not appropriate to impose indemnity costs or enhanced interest here, but because the awarded damages fell within Small Claims Tribunal jurisdiction the plaintiffs' costs are to be assessed on a scale as if the claim had been brought in the SCT; Costs Order Nisi accordingly varied to that effect and specific payment distri…