Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-action conduct

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

NG WAI YEE v. CHUNG MA LAI

Citation

[2026] HKDC 816
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2435/2024

The master’s finding that the plaintiff acted unreasonably and oppressively by initiating proceedings without any notice despite being primarily at fault was a permitted exercise of discretion; that conduct met the high threshold for indemnity costs because it caused unnecessary and disproportionate costs; the appeal is dismissed except insofar as the master failed to invite submissions on the amount assessed, for which the plaintiff may file summary objections; the joinder application is adjourned sine die on the undertaking given by the plaintiff.
3 Nov 2025

AHMED ISRAR v. RICHPAC LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1822
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1583/2024

The judge exercised her discretion to depart from the ordinary rule that the withdrawing party pays costs because the 2nd Respondent's dilatory, non‑responsive and aggressive litigation conduct (including issuing an unnecessary summons after the applicant had already agreed to discontinue) caused unnecessary cost and litigation; accordingly the court ordered no order as to costs between the applicant and the 2nd respondent and no order as to costs of the summons (nisi), and no order as to costs between R2 and R1.
28 Oct 2020

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD v. NG SAU MAN CLIFFORD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2518/2017

Applying the effective winner principle and a broad discretionary approach to costs, the Court found that the Defence rendered the plaintiff's primary relief academic and that neither party emerged as the overall successful party; pre-action demands were wide and imprecise and refusal was not unreasonable; there was insufficient basis for indemnity costs, and accordingly no order as to costs was appropriate for the action or the summons.
9 Jan 2018

LP v. LWCF

Citation

[2018] HKFC 2
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC18105/2013

The 26 July 2017 letter did not constitute a pre-action letter and the Petitioner failed to make reasonable enquiries before issuing the section 17 application; the Petitioner had carriage of the application and therefore must pay the 5th Intervener's costs of and occasioned by the withdrawal of the summonses, to be taxed forthwith with a certificate for counsel.
10 Mar 2017

YAU YIC LOCK v. WU TSANG KWAI YUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU YIC LOCK v. WU TSANG KWAI YUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2272/2014

The court found insufficient evidence that the plaintiff acted unreasonably or refused to engage in settlement; the plaintiff produced proof of a pre-action letter to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was joined later; defendants delayed and failed to propose terms; accordingly the Order Nisi is not varied and defendants fail in the application with costs consequences set out by the court.
8 Mar 2011

QI MIN LIANG AND OTHERS v. NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK TRUSTEE LTD

Citation

QI MIN LIANG AND OTHERS v. NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK TRUSTEE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2508/2003

The proceedings were wholly unjustified because plaintiffs' solicitors commenced the action without clarifying their authority and despite the defendant's readiness to provide accounts; accordingly plaintiffs must personally pay the defendant's costs, and the solicitors must be given the required opportunity to show cause as to why a wasted costs order should not be made against them.
31 Dec 2009

WONG SHUI LAM v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Citation

WONG SHUI LAM v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI151/2009

Defendant's failure to give a constructive reply to repeated pre-action requests in breach of the Practice Direction and CPR objectives unjustifiably increased costs; therefore Plaintiff awarded costs of liability up to the interlocutory judgment and costs of the statement of claim to be taxed on an indemnity basis, while costs of the costs application are awarded on party-and-party basis.
15 Jun 2001

WEALTHY PLUS LTD. v. LAI MAN HO AND ANOTHER

Citation

WEALTHY PLUS LTD. v. LAI MAN HO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15427/2000

The Plaintiff acted unreasonably in issuing the writ and pursuing litigation despite repeated reasonable offers and opportunities for inspection; because the Defendants could not adequately protect their costs position by payment into court in the special circumstances, Calderbank offers were admissible and warranted penalising the Plaintiff under Order 62 Rule 7; accordingly the court entered judgment for the agreed damages but ordered that the Plaintiff pay specified costs (Order 29 application costs and the costs hearing) while otherwise making no order as to costs.