Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scale of costs

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2025

KRISTANTO DONI v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1209
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ819/2023

The court accepted that commencing this action in the District Court was reasonable at the time of commencement (pre‑Sundari) but it became unreasonable to continue in the District Court after Sundari (30 August 2023); therefore costs are awarded at District Court scale only up to 30 August 2023 and at Small Claims Tribunal scale thereafter; given the run‑of‑the‑mill nature of SSUD Cases and disproportionate itemized claims, a broad‑brush summary assessment is appropriate and the plaintiff's costs are summarily assessed at a gross total of HK$7,300 (HK$7,000 up to 30 August 2023 and HK$300 th…
30 May 2025

NG YAU SING AND OTHERS v. FALCON INSURANCE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA135/2022

The plaintiffs' claim was bound to fail because they could not satisfy the Policy definition of ‘Humane Destruction’ (no evidence of an excessively painful disease or injury, no certificate from a veterinary surgeon appointed by the insurer and no certificate that immediate destruction was imperative); the new materials disclosed in December 2022 (Schiff report and related materials) were not material to the plaintiffs' ability to make the claim or to their decision to accept the sanctioned payment; although defendants withheld those materials until exchange of witness statements, that withho…
19 Sept 2024

JASBIR SINGH v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1540
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1248/2021

Defendant failed to give the mandatory prior warning before the plaintiff accepted the sanctioned payment, so the prima facie rule under O 22 r 20(1) applies and plaintiff is entitled to costs up to the date of acceptance assessed at the District Court scale; exercising summary assessment discretion and reducing claimed hours as excessive, the court assessed costs at HK$15,000 and made no order as to costs of this application.
12 Aug 2024

SRI PURWATI MUHASIM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1314
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5953/2021

Although the court has power to order costs on an SCT-like scale, the judge exercised discretion to allow costs on the District Court scale but imposed a substantial reduction by summarily assessing plaintiff's costs at HK$15,000 because the plaintiff's choice to litigate in the District Court was disproportionate to the HK$20,000 settlement and the claimed costs were excessive and unreasonable in the circumstances.
28 Jun 2024

IP SIU CHI v. KWAN WING HANG t/a FAI HUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1622
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1200/2018

The plaintiff was entitled to commence in the High Court when the writ was issued but should have sought transfer to the District Court after the EC award was made or after discovery and production of documents (whichever was later); accordingly costs are on the High Court scale from the date of the writ to the date of the EC award or discovery/production (whichever is later) and on the District Court scale thereafter.
7 Jul 2023

CHAN FUNG YU ANJI v. HONG KONG SHENG KUNG HUI WELFARE COUNCIL LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 934
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI939/2021

The court found on the plaintiff's pleaded case that there was insufficient factual basis for a common law claim and that the pre-action offer and the sanctioned payment were materially identical in outcome; those facts constitute exceptional circumstances justifying departure from the prima facie costs rule in O 22 r 20(1) RDC and require that the plaintiff bear costs from 28 January 2021 (with costs up to 27 January 2021 awarded to plaintiff).
28 Oct 2016

LEIZEL DALERE RAMONES, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED, SUING ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED AND ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEPENDANTS OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED v. LEE KUT TUNG

Citation

LEIZEL DALERE RAMONES, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED, SUING ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED AND ON BEHALF OF AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DEPENDANTS OF REBECCA DALERE RAMONES, DECEASED v. LEE KUT TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1264/2015

Defendant was entitled to an order that costs (other than costs of and occasioned by this application) be taxed on the District Court scale because the defendant gave prior warning and the court found, on the evidence available at commencement and up to acceptance of the sanctioned payment, there was no reasonable prospect of an award exceeding District Court jurisdiction; plaintiff's evidence of full remittance was inadequate and conventional dependency assumptions applied.
13 Jun 2016

KAM SIU KEI v. YUEN ON ENGINNEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAM SIU KEI v. YUEN ON ENGINNEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI573/2010

The review was dismissed because the taxation under review arose from a costs order (Master Yu, 19 Aug 2013) awarding costs of the action to the plaintiff, and the disputed items related to documents and work that properly formed part of the action (supplemental witness statements, consideration of re-revised damages pleadings, and an affirmation supporting High Court scale). Counsel fees were proportionately reduced but justified given complexity and circumstances (including plaintiff's detention and the significance of the affirmation on scale of costs).
17 Aug 2015

CHAN TO NING v. TSUI YU MING t/a MING TAK ELECTRICAL CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN TO NING v. TSUI YU MING t/a MING TAK ELECTRICAL CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI849/2009

The Plaintiff was entitled to have his costs up to 15 August 2011 taxed on the High Court scale because, on the evidence and circumstances existing when the employees' compensation was settled, he had a reasonable prospect of recovering more than the District Court limit; Defendants were entitled to enhanced interest on specified post-15 August 2011 costs at 9% per annum but only up to 31 December 2012; sanctioned payments were to be applied as directed and costs of the applications were allocated partly to the Plaintiff.
7 Nov 2014

WONG CHIM HING V. DISCOVERY BAY TRANSIT SERVICES LIMITED

Citation

WONG CHIM HING V. DISCOVERY BAY TRANSIT SERVICES LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI254/2011

The default rule is that a plaintiff who accepts a defendant's sanctioned payment in the High Court is prima facie entitled to have costs up to the date of acceptance taxed on the High Court scale, but the court may, in exceptional circumstances, invoke the 'otherwise' proviso in Order 22 r.20 to order taxation on the District Court scale. Exceptional circumstances can include acceptance of a sanctioned payment below the District Court jurisdictional limit of HK$1,000,000 where there is no objective evidence supporting a prospect of recovery above that limit; the defendant should normally giv…