Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reserved costs

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2024

CHEN HONGQING v. THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SET OUT IN THE SECOND COLUMN OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE RE AMENDED WRIT OF SUMMONS FILED ON 26 MARCH 2018 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3658
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2648/2017

The slip rule could not be invoked because there was no manifest intention by Deputy High Court Judge To to award the reserved costs when he made the May 29 2018 order; however the court had jurisdiction under Order 62 r4(1) to deal with reserved costs after discontinuance and, exercising that discretion, awarded the plaintiff only (1) costs for preparation of court documents before 29 December 2017 and (2) costs in relation to the directions made by Mr Justice Li on 29 December 2017, but refused costs for the interim-interim application; there is no order as to costs of this application.
29 Jan 2024

FONG MUK KAI 對 NG KAM MUI 及另四人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 146
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3511/2020

The court refused the Plaintiff's Sanderson application and granted the Third Defendant's summons: the Plaintiff must pay the Third Defendant's costs including all reserved costs; costs incurred before transfer to the District Court are to be assessed on the High Court scale and costs after transfer on the District Court scale. Other costs orders as specified were made between the parties.
3 Nov 2021

DENNIS KWOK HON MING v. POON SUI CHEONG ALBERT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1629
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV9/2017

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds were fact‑sensitive, raised no question of law of great and general public importance and had no reasonable prospect of success; the Court held there is an implied term permitting shareholders to remove a manager for cause and that the petitioner’s misconduct (including transfer of over HK$1.2m) justified removal; no unfair prejudice was found so no buy‑out remedy arose; Clause 6(2) of the Shareholders' Agreement is a precondition requiring shareholder approval before the remaining…
9 Sept 2021

CHENG SING KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KA HAY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2164/2013

The offers did not qualify as sanctioned offers because they contained terms on costs inconsistent with the mandatory costs consequences in Order 22; therefore they could not support an award of indemnity costs. The 1st defendant was not entitled to indemnity costs; however the costs reserved in respect of the interlocutory injunction summons are awarded to the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs’ summons is dismissed and there is no order as to costs of the two summonses.
3 Aug 2021

PIERHEAD GARDEN MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PIERHEAD GARDEN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2161
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA559/2013

Defendant's application to vary the costs order nisi is refused; the original costs order nisi is varied to specify the plaintiff is entitled to 80% of the costs of its claim including two specified reserved costs with certificate for two counsel, no order as to costs for defendant's defence and counterclaim, and costs to be taxed if not agreed; plaintiff awarded costs of the variation applications with certificate for junior counsel only.
16 Nov 2018

KWAN YUEN MEI v. LAU SUI YUEN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 829
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/2016

Because this Court upheld Lok J's dismissal of HCPI 569 and 570/2009 for want of prosecution and abuse of process, the defendants are entitled to the reserved costs from the earlier leave application proceedings (HCMP 3045 and 3046/2015); therefore the costs awarded on dismissal of the appeals include those reserved costs.
7 May 2015

ZIMMER SWEDEN AB v. KPN HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZIMMER SWEDEN AB v. KPN HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2264/2013

The court retained jurisdiction to determine the four reserved costs while the proceedings remained on foot; the reserved costs under the Directions Order are to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff forthwith to be taxed if not agreed and the Costs Order is to be amended under the slip rule to include those costs; the reserved costs of the 1st and 2nd Mareva injunctions and the gagging order are to be treated as costs in the cause; the plaintiff's summons costs are costs in the cause (nisi).
20 Mar 2015

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD

Citation

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP299/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because even accepting that reserved costs can fall to be considered under Order 22(5)(b) and need not be treated as part of general costs, the plaintiff failed to show reasonable prospects of establishing that the Deputy Judge misapplied or failed to exercise her discretion in relation to the reserved costs; the Deputy Judge's decision to make no order as to those reserved costs was a proper exercise of discretion in circumstances where the likely outcome was not obvious and would have required effectively rehearing the underlying application.
27 Aug 2014

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD

Citation

GOLDEN TONN INDUSTRIAL LTD v. HONG KONG CYBERPORT (ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA362/2011

The sanctioned payment regime grants a prima facie entitlement to costs up to acceptance but does not extend to reserved costs; permitting post‑acceptance adjudication of reserved costs would undermine the certainty central to Order 22; therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the reserved costs claimed and the appeal is dismissed.
28 Nov 2013

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

Citation

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW282/2010

The summons was dismissed because the earlier costs order of 21 March 2013 had finally dealt with the costs of the proceedings, the issue of reserved costs had not been raised then, there was no clerical mistake to correct under Order 20 r 11, and the court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; additionally, interlocutory costs are not automatically subsumed within 'costs of the action.'