Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal liability for costs

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2025

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2025] HKDC 336
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

The summons for adjournment was refused insofar as it was taken at the eleventh hour without good reason, but the court granted a final limited extension by making an unless order requiring filing of the affirmation by 4:00pm on 17 March 2025 or debarment; the substantive hearing was adjourned to 11 April 2025 and the applicant (Ms Yung) was ordered personally to pay the costs of her application and the wasted costs of the hearing forthwith, summarily assessed at HK$58,000 and to be on an indemnity basis.
3 Aug 2023

SO CHO YEE AND ANOTHER v. KONG CHI HOW JOHNSON alias JOHNSON KONG, the administrator and trustee of the estate of SO KA WING, deceased

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2000
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP500/2023

Defendant unjustifiably withheld documents in breach of his duties as administrator; plaintiffs obtained the substantive relief and are entitled to costs to be paid personally by the defendant; those costs are to be summarily assessed on party and party basis with certificate for counsel and the defendant shall not be indemnified for those costs out of the respective estates.
5 May 2023

RE CHU JIARU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1177
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8394/2020

The court ordered that costs should in general follow the event but, balancing the Bankrupt's success in establishing a bona fide dispute and the Bankrupt's unsatisfactory conduct in the bankruptcy, reduced the Petitioner's costs entitlement to 75% and summarily assessed the Petitioner's costs entitlement at HK$1,800,000 (with 75% being HK$1,350,000); the court ordered trustees' costs be paid from the estate but reimbursed by the Bankrupt after unsecured creditors are paid or on discharge; summary assessment was appropriate given the court's familiarity; no order as to costs on the Petitioner…
4 Aug 2017

MAI CUITING v. MAK CHUI FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAI CUITING v. MAK CHUI FONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2619/2016

Defendants defaulted in their statutory and common law duties to administer the estate and to render a proper account; the delays, failures to explain discrepancies and failure to take necessary steps to administer assets were not satisfactorily explained; accordingly defendants must personally bear the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis and are deprived of having their costs paid out of the Estate.
1 Aug 2016

LAW WAI HAY v. LAW PO CHONG PRISCILLA, the administrator of the estate of CHEUNG WAI FUN

Citation

LAW WAI HAY v. LAW PO CHONG PRISCILLA, the administrator of the estate of CHEUNG WAI FUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/2014

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the formulated questions were essentially fact‑sensitive and therefore did not satisfy s.22(1)(b) Cap.484; consequentially the court summarily assessed and ordered costs to be paid personally by the defendant (HKD 80,000 for the appeal and HKD 20,000 for the leave application).
9 Mar 2011

LEE LAI CHING v. LEE MAN FOR AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE LAI CHING v. LEE MAN FOR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1576/2003

Defendants wilfully forborne from administering the estate, their explanations for delay were unsatisfactory or unsupported, and therefore under Order 62 r.6(2) they acted unreasonably and must personally bear the costs of these proceedings (excluding costs already ordered payable personally dated 13 June 2006).
19 Jan 2010

TANG KOON MUI AND ANOTHER v. TANG TAK LUK

Citation

TANG KOON MUI AND ANOTHER v. TANG TAK LUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA190/2007

The court directed that the contested costs be taxed on an indemnity basis, ordered summary assessment and fixed the quantum: HCA 190/2007 costs at HKD 109366.67 to be paid first from the deceased's estate and deducted from the defendant's share, and HCA 191/2007 costs at HKD 109343.67 to be paid personally by the defendant.
10 Mar 2009

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2008

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the summary judgment because the writ and pleadings included claims based on allegations of deliberate fraud and concealment; Order 1(2)(b) therefore precluded the High Court from determining the claims by summary judgment under Order 14 and the matters must proceed to fuller trial/case management.
10 Oct 2008

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2763/2004

Section 52A permits costs orders against persons of record who, though not parties to the specific application, are the real parties controlling or benefitting from the litigation; the court will exercise its discretion where directors controlled the defence, knew of the plaintiff's beneficial ownership, resisted the proceedings without a factual basis, and a costs order against the companies would be ineffective, thus justifying personal costs against the directors.
21 Dec 2001

Tang Man Kit v. Hip Hing Timber Co. Ltd.

Citation

Tang Man Kit v. Hip Hing Timber Co. Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8000/1990

The writ was issued without authority and was set aside; Tang and Foo were not shown to be representative plaintiffs because representative status was not indorsed on the writ nor properly pleaded, and even if representative they would not be exempt from personal liability for costs; accordingly the action was dismissed and costs were ordered against Tang and Foo (with a temporal limitation on Foo's liability).