Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offers and costs

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2016

ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD AND OTHERS v. NGO KUI SING AND OTHERS

Citation

ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD AND OTHERS v. NGO KUI SING AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS4000/2013

The tribunal applied the compensation approach from Good Faith but retained a broad discretionary assessment of costs rather than an automatic shift based solely on the fact that an offer exceeded the tribunal assessment. On the facts the five respondents deliberately embraced an exaggerated EUV (principally via Mr Siu) and pursued an unsupportable 'hope value' (via Ms Sat), causing wasted time and expense. The appropriate cut-off for costs entitlement was fixed as the day before trial (1 March 2015); consequently the five respondents are disallowed certain expert and related legal costs and…
8 Apr 1997

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. APPLE DAILY LTD.

Citation

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. APPLE DAILY LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA952/1997

The court held the defendant infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the front‑cover photograph, assessed a modest notional royalty of HKD 5,000 and conversion damages of HKD 3,000 (no overlap between the two), awarded nominal sum of HKD 1 for other claimed copyrights, and ordered that the defendant is entitled to its costs because it made a sensible early offer which the plaintiff rejected.
22 Feb 1995

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9302/1993

Cumulative special features — obtaining and maintaining an ex parte Mareva injunction based on miscalculated restraint, concealment of material facts and source of funds, repeated defaults and delays, wilful non-compliance with discovery orders and suppression or misleading of evidence — constituted an abuse of process and an affront to the court; those facts justified departing from ordinary party-and-party costs and ordering costs on an indemnity basis against all plaintiffs; Susan Johnson's affirmations excluded as inadmissible hearsay when used to establish plaintiffs' motives.
22 Feb 1995

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6861/1993

Given the cumulative special and unusual features — unjustified ex parte Mareva relief maintained without inter partes justification, gross miscalculation of amount restrained, concealment of the true source of security funds, repeated delay and defaults, deliberate suppression and non-disclosure of material documents and misleading evidence — the court exercised its discretion under O.62 r.28(3) to award costs on an indemnity basis to the defendants in both actions, including costs of related summonses.

Hong Kong Case Law

ORIENTAL GENERATION LTD AND OTHERS v. NGO KUI SING AND OTHERS

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. APPLE DAILY LTD.

BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS