Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement negotiations

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2025

WINLAND PROPERTY HOLDING LTD AND OTHERS v. CHANG SAI HO formerly known as LAW WAI KUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 41
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS7000/2022

The taxing master found no undue delay under Order 62 r22(5) RHC because the correct completion date was 11 April 2024 (costs order nisi made absolute 11 April), the receiving party's failure to commence taxation earlier was reasonably explained by the need to finalise auction particulars and seek further directions which could affect the scope of the Costs Order, settlement efforts and instruction of a Law Costs Draftsman; although parts of the preparation could have been expedited, the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable and therefore did not attract sanction.
26 May 2025

JTJ v. HGSH

Citation

[2025] HKFC 116
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15905/2018

Applying the principles that costs normally follow the event but the court has a broad discretion in family cases, the judge found the Respondent to be the overall successful party, the Petitioner failed to show any of his five grounds justified varying the costs order nisi, and the Petitioner’s application to vary was dismissed; costs of the application were ordered against the Petitioner and the costs order nisi was made absolute.
3 Oct 2024

MCYP v. CWYW

Citation

[2024] HKFC 187
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11432/2018

Late lodging of CMH bundles and failure to comply with specified deadlines constituted breach of the court's order; settlement negotiations do not justify ignoring case management directions; adjournment was refused as inadequately particularised; no order as to costs was made for the hearing but parties and their solicitors were warned of potential wasted costs orders and referral for disciplinary investigation; active case management directions were given to progress the matter.
12 Oct 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 199
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

The court held that the Wife's persistent pursuit of an unreasonable 'black hole' theory, despite lack of forensic basis, hampered settlement, increased the Husband's costs and lengthened the trial; this conduct justified departing from the Costs Order nisi. The Wife was ordered to pay 20% of the Husband's costs of the ancillary relief proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement on an indemnity basis; the Husband was awarded 50% of his costs of the summons on a party and party basis to be taxed in default of agreement; certification for counsel was granted; summary assessment of total co…
11 Aug 2021

HU WAN v. SANWO INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 948
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI3621/2019

Order 22 r24 was engaged because the judgment exceeded the plaintiff's sanctioned offers; on the facts the defendant's conduct (delays in serving witness statements, extensive discovery and failure to engage meaningfully with offers) made it not unjust to award enhanced interest and indemnity costs; the court awarded enhanced interest at 2% above judgment rate from 3 June 2020 until judgment, indemnity costs from 3 June 2020, taxed High Court scale pre-transfer, refused enhanced interest on future loss, and ordered costs of the application on a party-and-party basis.
29 Jun 2021

CYM v. LSP AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKFC 125
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP178/2020

Leave was granted because the applicant only received actual notice of the grant on 9 August 2020, pre-deadline negotiations (WhatsApp and solicitor letters) occurred, solicitors were instructed within the statutory period, the 58-day delay was short and reasonably explained by respondents' failure to respond to the daughter's enquiries, the estate had not been distributed, the applicant advanced an arguable case as long-term dependent, and respondents suffered no prejudice; accordingly exercise of the court's unfettered discretion in favour of granting leave was just and proper.
19 Dec 2019

POON LOI TAK the Administrator of the late POON NUEN Deceased v. POON LOI CHEUNG DESMOND

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3003
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3348/2016

On the facts and objectively viewed, the telephone calls, the 17 October and 31 October meetings, subsequent WhatsApp communications, the draft settlement agreement and the 5 December meeting were bona fide attempts to settle an existing dispute and attracted without prejudice privilege; the plaintiff failed to establish unambiguous impropriety or perjury to displace the privilege; accordingly the specified paragraphs and documents are inadmissible and are to be excluded/expunged, with consequential costs and directions as ordered.
11 Dec 2019

WONG CHUNG CHI v. YUILLEY BUILDING MATERIALS COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3005
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW367/2016

The court refused to order indemnity costs because the petitioner engaged in meaningful settlement negotiations, there was insufficient evidence of unconscionable conduct or that the petitioner never intended to pursue winding up, and ambiguity in the respondents' offers (notably regarding share transfer) meant indemnity costs were not justified.
10 Mar 2017

YAU YIC LOCK v. WU TSANG KWAI YUK AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU YIC LOCK v. WU TSANG KWAI YUK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2272/2014

The court found insufficient evidence that the plaintiff acted unreasonably or refused to engage in settlement; the plaintiff produced proof of a pre-action letter to the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant was joined later; defendants delayed and failed to propose terms; accordingly the Order Nisi is not varied and defendants fail in the application with costs consequences set out by the court.
20 Jun 2016

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

CRANE WORLD ASIA PTE LTD v. HONTRADE ENGINEERING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1405/2016

The court held that the Defendant's settlement term conditioning settlement on the witness refraining from giving a witness statement to the Plaintiff was an unambiguous impropriety that abused the without prejudice occasion; consequently the without prejudice privilege did not protect that evidence and the material referring to the offer of 26 November 2015 was admissible at trial. The Judge below erred in refusing admission.