Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation application

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2023

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1672
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO11/2019

The court refused to allow the Respondent's claimed elevated rates except to the limited extent justified; it adopted the Circulated Rates as the starting point and fixed uplifted hourly rates of HK$5,200, HK$3,500 and HK$1,400 for JWCT, LIJK and CHKL respectively for the Leave Application, applied discounts for lack of complexity and on counsel fees, and assessed costs at HK$45,000 (party and party) for the Variation Application, HK$20,000 (indemnity) for the Stay Application and HK$140,000 (indemnity) for the Leave Application. The Claimant's substantive complaint about the indemnity orders…
4 Oct 2019

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1707/2018

The court concluded that the defendant was the successful party because the Decision dismissed all of the plaintiff's grounds for pursuing the 2018 summons; consequently the plaintiff's variation application was dismissed and costs should not be left as 'no order' but assessed against the plaintiff, the interlocutory proceedings being separable and taxable independently of the main action.
6 Sept 2019

XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3166/2014

The court held that where counsel was instructed and briefed, certain solicitors' items (specifically items D2, D3 and E1) were excessive and should be reduced; on summary assessment the reasonable costs to be allowed to the Respondent were fixed at HK$115,000.
27 Aug 2001

WANG JIAN AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG TIEN FENG AND OTHERS

Citation

WANG JIAN AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG TIEN FENG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA607/2001

The court refused to vary the Mareva injunction because the plaintiffs had a strong prima facie proprietary case over funds in the 7th Defendant's account and the 1st, 2nd and 7th Defendants failed to make full and frank disclosure or to show absence of an ulterior motive (no satisfactory explanation for source of prior payments, overseas movements, and unexplained missing funds), so discretion to permit drawing on frozen funds was not exercised; the plaintiffs' administrative amendment was allowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

LEE CHICK CHOI v. THE HONG KONG GOLF CLUB

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

XU LIU CHUN v. WU CHANG JIANG AND ANOTHER

WANG JIAN AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG TIEN FENG AND OTHERS