Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unrepresented litigant

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

王欽賢對高景波

Citation

[2026] HKDC 572
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1408/2023

The court applied Order 62 r28(4A) and the authorities on indemnity‑basis assessments, admitted the late‑filed defendant statement as delay was minor, found the defendant offered no substantive objections to the claimed items, made only modest reductions for non‑complex aspects of the late appeal, and held the plaintiff's claimed costs were not unreasonable or unreasonably incurred; therefore costs were summarily assessed at HK$59,559 payable immediately by the defendant.
4 Sept 2024

LAM MAN YING (林文英) 對 SO WAH KWAN (蘇華坤)，the administrator of the estate of CHIU LAI CHING (趙麗貞), deceased, formerly traded as BEAUTY REGENT (麗晶專業美容中心)

Citation

[2024] HKCA 846
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP323/2023

The applicant failed to show any obvious legal error in the primary judge's findings or any special factors sufficient to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; the late medical material was not admitted as new evidence and did not establish incapacity to attend, therefore the application to vary the interim costs order and the application to stay its execution were dismissed.
6 Mar 2024

LEE TIM MUI 對 HUI SHU PANG

Citation

[2024] HKCA 200
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP181/2023

Applying party-party assessment principles the court reduced C1 and C3 to one hour each, disallowed D3 (preparation for hearing) and assessed the defendant's costs at HK$68,380 inclusive of counsel fees.
3 Aug 2023

毛雲傑對漁農自然護理署

Citation

[2023] HKCA 919
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV452/2022

Because the appellant's appeal had been dismissed and he did not respond to the respondent's costs statement, and because the court found the respondent's claimed items, time and rates reasonable on summary assessment, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal assessed at HK$20,250.
27 Feb 2023

RE JAMILAH

Citation

[2023] HKCA 265
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV188/2021

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Ordinance and no 'or otherwise' basis for leave was shown; accordingly the notice of motion for leave was dismissed.
27 Oct 2022

RE RAJA MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR MUKHTAR

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1595
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV90/2022

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the statutory threshold in s.22(1)(b) Cap.484 is not met: no question of great general or public importance is identified, the proposed grounds are not reasonably arguable, and there is no basis under the "or otherwise" limb; accordingly extending time would be futile.
19 Oct 2021

WONG SUET FOON SHIRLY 對 COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1518
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2020

The court held that the respondent, having filed and then withdrawn the leave to appeal application, must pay the appellant's costs of that application; the appellant's unrepresented status does not bar an award of costs but is relevant to assessment; costs were assessed summarily at HK$2,000.
10 Jan 2020

RE HABIB MUHAMMAD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 34
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP202/2019

The extension of time to appeal was refused because, although the delay was not insignificant, the decisive factor was that the intended appeal had no prospect of success on the available materials and therefore granting an extension would be futile; applicant's illiteracy and lack of representation, without demonstrable prejudice or grounds of appeal, did not justify an extension.
28 May 2019

RE RASU RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation

[2019] HKCA 601
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV472/2018

The notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap. 484 and presented no other basis to justify leave.
15 Apr 2019

RE MAPILI EMILYN SAMPAGA

Citation

[2019] HKCA 320
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV375/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds related only to the applicant's personal circumstances and factual issues, did not raise any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of Cap.484, and in any event the grounds lacked merit; there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.