Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protective costs order

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2026

有關陳祺豐的事宜

Citation

[2026] HKCA 392
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/2025

The court refused all substantive interlocutory applications: it declined to admit the proffered post‑judgment documents as new evidence because they were irrelevant to the debt finding; declined transcript and disclosure applications as inappropriate on appeal or properly directed to the trial court; refused to grant a stay or a protective costs order as there were no arguable grounds or public interest justification; validated the judicial officer's case management directions under statutory appointment; concluded the debtor's repeated, overlapping and unfounded applications amounted to abu…
10 Feb 2025

竹林明堂有限公司對陳祺豐

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 614
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2782/2015

Permission to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on any of the seventeen grounds; the challenged findings were not shown to be erroneous, the issues had become academic because the costs assessment was completed, and a protective costs order was inappropriate for a private employment dispute; accordingly all applications in the summons were dismissed and an interim costs order requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs was made.
23 Sept 2024

竹林明堂有限公司對陳祺豐

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2782/2015

Both appeals were dismissed. The 2015 and 2016 retainers are irrelevant to the scheduled costs assessment; even if the 2017 retainer were invalid an implied retainer could impose liability for reasonable fees, so the costs assessment should proceed. A Protective Costs Order was refused because the matters are not of broad public importance and the defendant has a private interest. The registrar's orders are reheard and given appropriate weight; appeals did not warrant stay of the costs assessment. Defendant must pay plaintiff's costs of the appeals and plaintiff's costs are to be summarily as…
23 Sept 2024

竹林明堂有限公司對陳祺豐

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA142/2016

The appeals are dismissed because the 2015/2016 retainers are irrelevant to the costs assessment, an implied retainer would bind the plaintiff to pay reasonable fees even if the 2017 written retainer were invalid, and a Protective Costs Order is inappropriate because the proceedings do not engage public interest; accordingly the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeals and the plaintiff's claimed costs are to be assessed by summary procedure.
30 Nov 2018

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL49/2014

The joinder application was refused: an inordinate four-year delay with no satisfactory explanation, coupled with insufficient merits to overcome that delay and potential prejudice, justified exercising the court's discretion against allowing joinder.
15 May 2018

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 16
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV4/2018

Appeal dismissed. Court applied Corner House principles and held PCOs are exceptional; applicant bears burden to disclose financial ability to meet likely adverse costs; where a company lacks funds the court may in appropriate circumstances inquire into directors/shareholders/backers' resources and reasons for non-support; DHKL failed to provide adequate financial information from its directors/guarantors and they were unwilling to support litigation, producing unfairness to respondent; consequently a PCO was not justified on the facts.
20 Dec 2017

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV30/2017

The application to dispense with the standard security for costs was dismissed because the applicant failed to show good grounds to vary the standard PD 2.3 condition; the claimed financial inability was not sufficiently compelling (partly self-induced and unsupported), reliance on public interest status or the respondent’s public funding pre-empted the appeal’s outcome and did not eliminate prejudice, therefore the standard security of HK$400,000 is to be ordered.
30 Oct 2017

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV30/2017

Leave to appeal was granted on the specified legal questions so that the Court of Final Appeal can determine the correct legal principles governing the grant of Protective Costs Orders in public interest cases, including the role of the applicant's and respondent's financial resources, the relevance of directors' private resources, the relevance of legal aid, and whether PCOs should be determined at the leave stage applying Corner House Research or via a fuller inter partes procedure.
23 Oct 2015

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1890/2015

The Court refused the extension of time and leave to appeal because the applicant's delay was substantial and unjustified and because the tendered evidence was plainly irrelevant to the PCO application and to any appeal; consequentially the summons was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum ordered.
31 Jul 2015

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD

Citation

DESIGNING HONG KONG LTD v. THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL49/2014

The court refused the applicant's variation application and made the costs order nisi absolute, holding that an unsuccessful PCO applicant should normally bear the respondent's costs; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to show departure from the usual costs rule, the PCO application was pursued for the applicant's personal benefit, the oral hearing and amici were justified given novel legal issues, and therefore it was fair and just that the applicant pays the respondent's costs to be taxed if not agreed.