Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sanctioned offer (order 22)

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

CHAN YAU YAM v. DR HO SAI CHEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2130
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2438/2024

On objective interpretation, JSM’s 6 August 2025 letter and the Notice of Acceptance plainly and unconditionally accepted the Re-Amended Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 r16(1); the accompanying draft consent summons merely proposed additional terms for the Plaintiff’s consideration and did not render the acceptance conditional or equivocal; the Master had jurisdiction under Practice Direction 18.1 para 116 to determine the procedural dispute at the CLR hearing; the Plaintiff’s fresh affirmations were excluded because they were further evidence and failed Ladd v Marshall (not likely to affect…
20 Jun 2025

HANG HEUNG CAKE SHOP COMPANY LTD v. TSOI CHIK SANG LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA989/2004

The 5 May 2025 letter was a notice of acceptance served on the offeror within the meaning of Order 22 rule 12, and therefore the sanctioned offer was validly accepted and a binding settlement resulted; accordingly the Consolidated Action trial dates were vacated and the consolidation/HCA 2061 summonses were dismissed; costs were awarded against Tsoi, on an indemnity basis, being HK$190,000 to HHCS and HK$190,000 to Tardi, payable forthwith, certificate for one counsel only.
20 Jun 2025

HANG HEUNG CAKE SHOP COMPANY LTD v. TSOI CHIK SANG LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1327/2013

The 5 May 2025 letter amounted to a valid acceptance of the Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 rule 12 because acceptance occurs on service of notice; the procedural filing requirement in Order 22 rule 16 does not negate that acceptance; alleged misrepresentation or undue influence by a third party did not invalidate the acceptance as there was no agency or knowledge by HHCS; challenges to HHCS's authority and to champerty were without merit; accordingly the settlement was effective, the consolidation summonses were dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents on an indemnity basis.
28 Feb 2025

CHOW SUI TAK AND ANOTHER v. CHOW SUI HEI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 857
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1287/2018

The 31 March 2023 offer did not qualify as a sanctioned offer under RHC Order 22 because the trial for both actions had commenced on 21 March 2023 and because the offer was expressed inclusive of costs; accordingly indemnity costs and enhanced interest were not justified. The 20 January 2023 Calderbank offer could be taken into account but did not overcome the court's prior decision to deprive the plaintiffs of 25% of costs for the reasons given, so no increase to 90% or indemnity basis was ordered; only a certificate for two counsel was added to the costs order.
25 Mar 2022

SUNLIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. AGP (FAR EAST) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 263
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4867/2007

The April 2021 letter was not a valid sanctioned offer because it failed to comply with Order 22 rule 5(7); the defendant’s persistent refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers and prolonged inaction amounted to wholly unjustified conduct warranting an award of indemnity costs from 30 July 2020, with costs of the plaintiff’s amendment excluded.
13 Sept 2021

TSANG WOON MING v. TSAN HING TAT HEIDI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1091
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3791/2016

Plaintiff's flat rejection of a reasonable Calderbank settlement without negotiation and subsequent failure to beat the offer justified ordering the defendants' costs on a higher/common fund basis (90%) from the date after rejection; enhanced interest running prior to judgment was not ordered because defendants failed to give sufficient alert that such a remedy would be sought arising from a non-O22 offer; the plaintiff's proposed appeal grounds were factual and lacked reasonable prospects, so leave and stay were refused.
17 Apr 2020

BETTER MARINE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ZHONG SHAN COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 623
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA958/2014

The court refused to vary the Judge's enhanced interest on the judgment sum (17.9% p.a.), finding defendant's conduct and the trial judge's adverse findings justified an uplift close to the statutory maximum; it reduced the pre-judgment enhanced interest on costs to half (9% p.a.) from 22 April 2015 to 30 November 2016, retained post-judgment enhanced interest on costs at 17.9% p.a., and awarded 80% of the application costs to plaintiff on an indemnity basis with enhanced interest (9% from 12 December 2016 to date of decision, thereafter 17.9% until payment).
27 Mar 2020

YAU PO SHAN v. THE EXPRESS LIFT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 165
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2370/2014

The court held the 1st offer was a valid sanctioned offer by plaintiff (construed as made separately to each defendant on the same occasion) and plaintiff beat that offer at trial; accordingly O.22 r.24 was triggered and the 1st defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff indemnity costs from 21 April 2018, enhanced interest on the damages awarded at 6% above judgment rate from 21 April 2018 until judgment, and interest on costs at 5% p.a. from 21 April 2018 until this costs judgment. The court found it was reasonable for plaintiff to have joined and pursued the 2nd defendant and exercised its dis…
2 Sept 2019

KAN WAN CHUNG v. LEUNG MAN KON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1141
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2388/2016

The Offer was not a valid sanctioned offer under Order 22 because its costs term (costs up to the date of the Offer) did not align with Order 22 r21(1) and therefore prevented the statutory costs consequences from arising; however, because the defendants unreasonably refused to mediate, costs incurred after 18 November 2016 are to be taxed on a common fund basis; indemnity costs and enhanced interest from 12/13 September 2017 were not awarded.
7 Mar 2018

NG HAU WAN v. NG PIK CHU NAOMI

Citation

[2018] HKDC 238
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4557/2014

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a real prospect of success given the trial judge's entitled deference to his credibility and factual findings; the defendant's sanctioned offer which included a term as to costs did not fall squarely within Order 22 consequences, therefore the defendant was not entitled to the indemnity costs and enhanced interest sought; accordingly the defendant's summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and existing costs orders were made absolute.