Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Special circumstances

Legal area

Court

29 May 2025

TSE YUN LAM ARIES v. C & T LEGAL LLP (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1044/2024

No special circumstances within s67(2) were established: the bill was sufficiently particular; allegations of overcharging, duplication and clerical charging were unsubstantiated given the urgency and complexity of the injunction work; unpaid counsel's fees did not constitute special circumstances; failure to advise of the right to tax was not triggered. Accordingly the originating summons for taxation was dismissed.
29 Apr 2019

M, B v. S, L

Citation

[2019] HKFC 111
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3659/2016

The court found that the conditions in s.10(3)(b) were not satisfied because J was not in full‑time education and his difficulties (drug addiction and related issues) were not of the kind amounting to a lasting handicap justifying parental maintenance; the husband's financial position and existing responsibility for the younger child meant it was inappropriate to order further contribution, therefore the summons for interim maintenance was dismissed and costs ordered against the Respondent.
22 Feb 2017

OR SIU LUNG, the person appointed to represent the estate of LAM CHOI CHING, deceased v. FU HONG HOME FOR THE ELDERLY CO LTD t/a FU HONG HOME FOR THE ELDERLY

Citation

OR SIU LUNG, the person appointed to represent the estate of LAM CHOI CHING, deceased v. FU HONG HOME FOR THE ELDERLY CO LTD t/a FU HONG HOME FOR THE ELDERLY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1495/2015

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge had considered the deceased's unrelated and unforeseen death and there was no error of law or principle in treating such death as a contingency inherent in litigation rather than an automatic special circumstance under O.22 r.15(3); the exercise of discretion on costs was within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
25 Sept 2012

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS

Citation

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1841/2011

The retainer expressly authorised monthly self-contained invoices which were delivered and accepted by the plaintiff; no special circumstances were proven to justify taxation of paid bills more than 12 months old or paid bills 4–7; bill 8 was settled by a concluded agreement; bills 9 and 10 (unpaid) are ordered taxed provided their full amounts are paid into court within one month; defendant entitled to costs on party and party basis.
8 Apr 2011

WONG CHI PING v. FUNG WONG NG & LAM

Citation

WONG CHI PING v. FUNG WONG NG & LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1487/2010

The court held that the plaintiff failed to show special circumstances under s67(2) Cap.159 because the delay was unexplained and deliberate; alleged breaches of retainer and complaints of overcharging or lack of particularisation were not special when the bill was presented and amount at most to matters for ordinary taxation; therefore late referral to a Taxing Master was not justified and the appeal allowing the defendants to resist taxation succeeded.
24 Feb 2009

WAI YIP HIN v. WONG PO KIT

Citation

WAI YIP HIN v. WONG PO KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV336/2008

The application for security for costs was dismissed because the defendant had paid the judgment sum and was contactable and engaged in business in Hong Kong, so the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances or a real risk of inability to enforce a costs order.
21 Aug 2008

RONALD LIANG v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)

Citation

RONALD LIANG v. APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BUILDINGS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL67/2008

The Tribunal did not err: voids are not inherently 'special circumstances' under s.42(1); s.42(2) mandates case-by-case consideration so past practice cannot create a binding entitlement; no clear and unambiguous representation existed to found a legitimate expectation; the Tribunal's refusal to exempt the voids was rational and leave for judicial review is refused.
20 Nov 2007

WONG WING HO v. CHONG LAI WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG WING HO v. CHONG LAI WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2007

Security for costs in the sum of HKD 150,000 was ordered because, on the facts, the defendants demonstrated they would likely encounter undue delay or be put to undue expense enforcing any costs order on the appeal and the affidavit supporting the application was admissible for the 1st defendant's application.
31 Aug 2006

COPYTRON (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEE CHIN LEONG

Citation

COPYTRON (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEE CHIN LEONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2006

Although the defendant was resident abroad and had no assets in Hong Kong (special circumstances), the appellate court exercised its residual discretion to refuse security because the defendant could not raise the required funds (ordering security would effectively prevent him prosecuting an appeal with substantial prospects) and the appeal on first impression had sufficient merit that imposing the security would be unjust and would stifle the appeal.