10 Oct 2025
Because the provisional costs order became absolute by reason of no timely application to vary it, and because the costs claimed by the defendants' firm were overall reasonable, the court summarily assessed the costs and fixed the sum payable by the plaintiff as HK$14,000 in each of HCMP 2156/2024 and HCMP 2158/2024, payable immediately.
31 Jul 2025
The earlier judgment dismissed the plaintiff's claims and made a provisional costs order which became absolute when the plaintiff did not apply to vary it; because the four consolidated matters had the same background and the substantive hearing was very short (approximately five minutes), the court exercised its power to make a summary assessment and awarded fixed sums per case to the successful parties, payable immediately by the plaintiff.
20 Nov 2024
The proposed grounds merely repeat allegations previously rejected by this court and do not raise any reasonably arguable question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed, with costs to the putative respondent.
10 Oct 2024
The plaintiff was the successful party because litigation elicited documents that were not provided until proceedings began; the Trust Account issue did not materially increase length or cost; defendants' arguments did not justify reducing costs. The court ordered the plaintiff's costs of the action to be paid out of the Estate and allowed defendants' costs also to be paid out of the Estate, with taxation on a common fund basis if not agreed.
20 Oct 2023
Because the respondent properly sought costs, served a costs schedule and the applicant failed to file any response within the directed period, the court assessed and allowed the respondent's costs on summary assessment at HK$27,450.
20 Oct 2015
The appellant's appeal is dismissed and the appellant must pay the respondents' costs of the appeal; those costs are to be assessed on the party-and-party basis and, if the parties cannot agree on the amount, the hearing officer is to assess the costs.
18 May 2015
Under O62 r.35A the review is limited to errors of principle or failure to consider relevant/irrelevant matters; the judge found no such error by Master M Wong and concluded the plaintiff's allegations of misconduct did not bear on the correctness of the taxation, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the taxing master's discretion was not interfered with.
28 Oct 2010
The appeals were dismissed because the 6th defendant failed to establish sufficient misconduct, undue delay or procedural default by the 15th defendant that would justify disallowance of taxed costs or further reduction beyond the adjustments already made by Master Levy; the Master's reductions were adequate; accordingly the 6th defendant was ordered to pay the 15th defendant's costs of the appeals assessed at HK$35,000.
5 Dec 2008
The Statement of Claim was struck out because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the specific data‑privacy remedies claimed and because the claim failed to plead essential facts that the defendant made negative credit reports to TransUnion or that the plaintiff suffered pleaded loss or damage sufficient to establish a cause of action.
31 Oct 1997
The appellate court admitted the fresh evidence and exercised its discretion to allow the extension because the affidavits explained the delay, showed only a minimal procedural default (not procedural abuse), demonstrated no prejudice to the plaintiff that costs would not compensate, and overall justice required permitting the defendant to file its defence; accordingly the default judgment was set aside and leave granted to file the defence.