Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sanctioned payment (order 22)

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

CHAN MAN SAU v. 風采中學（教育評議會主辦）法團校董會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1749
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC962/2022

O.22 r.23 mandates the imposition of specified costs consequences where a plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment better than sanctioned payments unless it would be unjust; the Applicant failed to beat valid sanctioned payments, his explanations did not show it would be unjust to apply r.23, and therefore the Costs Order Nisi was varied to impose indemnity taxation and interest for costs after the specified cut-off dates, direct sanctioned payments to be paid out as ordered, and direct that the Respondent's costs be taxed together before the same Master.
28 Oct 2024

HUANG YUNLIAN 對 XUN YAO CONSTRUCTION LTD及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI51/2021

Order 22 r23 applies and, having found it would not be unjust to do so, the court varied the earlier costs order: defendants are entitled to plaintiffs' costs incurred after 31 January 2022 to be paid by the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, interest on those costs is fixed at judgment rate plus 6%, the plaintiff is denied interest on the award from 1 February 2022, and the court will retain HKD47,483.39 of the sanctioned payment pending assessment and set‑off; the remainder of the sanctioned payment is released to defendants.
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP99/2022

On the facts and applicable law the Court of Appeal held that (1) the Share Transfers, being validly entered in the register and not shown to be sham, produced members entitled to vote and their votes should not be excluded; (2) Order 22 is directed to the named plaintiff and does not permit the company (as defendant) to accept a defendant's sanctioned payment, but the court has jurisdiction under Order 22A to order payment out of money standing in court to the company in full and final settlement where the company, acting by an appropriate independent organ, genuinely resolves to accept the…
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP114/2022

Court allowed the appeals: held the judge erred in excluding the transferees' registered votes and in concluding the company could accept a sanctioned payment under Order 22; on facts the Share Transfers were genuine and their votes should be counted; while Order 22 is directed to the named plaintiff, the Court had power under Order 22A to order payment out of the $40,000,000 to the company in full and final settlement; accordingly ordered payment out to the company and made consequential costs directions.
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV56/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals: it held that (1) Order 22 is expressed in terms of the named ‘plaintiff’ and does not extend to permit the company-defendant itself to accept a defendant’s sanctioned payment as if it were the plaintiff; but (2) the court possesses a distinct and unfettered jurisdiction under Order 22A to order payment out of monies paid into court to the party entitled — here the company — and it was appropriate in the circumstances to order payment of HK$40,000,000 to the company (or its solicitors) in full and final settlement; and (3) on the facts the Share Transfe…
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP95/2022

The court held that on the judge’s findings the Share Transfers should not be excluded: the transfers were genuine, registration was effective and the transferees’ votes stood; the judge had not made necessary findings of improper purpose or that a reasonable director could not have believed registration served the company. Although Order 22 does not permit the company as defendant to be the accepting "plaintiff", the court has power under Order 22A to order payment out where the company, acting by an appropriate independent organ, has resolved to accept a sanctioned payment; accordingly the…
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals: it held that on the facts the Share Transfers were validly registered and the votes of Mak and Wong should not be excluded; Order 22 is framed for the named plaintiff and does not permit the company-defendant to be treated as the plaintiff for automatic acceptance of a sanctioned payment, but the court has jurisdiction under Order 22A to order payment out of the sanctioned payment to the company where justice and the circumstances so require; accordingly the court ordered the $40,000,000 standing in court to be paid out to the Company in full and final…
19 May 2023

POON KA MAN JASON v. CHENG WAI TAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 676
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV61/2023

The Court of Appeal held that (1) the judge erred in excluding the votes based on the Share Transfers: on the findings the transfers were genuine and registered entries gave Mak and Wong member status and their votes should be counted; (2) Order 22 is enacted in terms of the named plaintiff and does not extend to treating the defendant company as the accepting plaintiff in a derivative action, but the court has power under Order 22A to order payment out to the party entitled when justice and the circumstances (including an independent organ resolving to accept) warrant it; (3) on the facts it…
20 Apr 2021

CHAN NGA v. CATHAY PACIFIC CATERING SERVICES (H.K.) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 451
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI948/2019

The plaintiff did not obtain a judgment better than the sanctioned payment when interest is calculated up to the last date for acceptance (15 March 2018); accordingly O.22 r.23 is engaged and, absent injustice, the mandatory consequences apply: plaintiff must pay defendant's costs incurred after 15 March 2018 on indemnity basis; interest on PSLA (HK$200,000) is disallowed from 15 March 2018; defendant is entitled to interest at the commercial enhanced rate (9%) on specified fees from dates of payment to date of judgment; costs incurred from 16 March to 27 November 2018 are payable by the DLA;…
1 Apr 2021

CHEUNG MAN KOK v. CHAN YEE LING ELAINE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 455
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP18/2021

The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused because the sanctioned payment of HK$50,000 was valid, there was no reasonably arguable basis that it would be unjust to apply the normal costs consequences under Order 22 Rule 23, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff fixed at HK$60,000.