Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of order nisi

Legal area

Court

22 May 2025

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SUN ASCENT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2152
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP58/2022

The defendants' application to set aside the ex parte leave lacked merit because the alleged new evidence was not material to the limited inquiry at the ex parte stage and the defendants' pre-summons letter was an ultimatum not seeking explanation; accordingly costs follow the event and the Order Nisi is varied so that the costs of the summons are to the plaintiff with a certificate for two counsel, taxed if not agreed; costs of the costs variation application are to the plaintiff; no order as to costs of the direction hearing and no certificate for two counsel for the costs variation applica…
28 Aug 2024

CHAN WING TONG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM CHUNG BUILDING (JAFFE ROAD) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1581/2017

The court held that the plaintiff was justified in instructing two counsel for the substantive joinder hearing on 23 May 2023 and for the seven-day trial because the opposing side had multiple counsel (including leading counsel), but the plaintiff was not justified in instructing two counsel for the 14-minute PTR on 20 April 2023 when the MOs were not yet joined; therefore the Order Nisi is varied to grant certificates for two counsel for the joinder hearing on 23 May 2023 and for the trial but not for the PTR, and the MOs are not liable for PTR costs; no order as to costs of the Variation Su…
13 Dec 2023

LO CHUI YUK v. GOLD WIN ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3235
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI279/2021

Certificate for counsel was properly granted as engagement of counsel for preparation of submissions in a paper disposal is treated as attendance; defendants entitled to the costs of the Variation Application but reduced by 15% to reflect failure to obtain part of the relief sought (application of enhanced interest to net sanctioned payment), and the Order Nisi is varied to allocate the sanctioned payment, set interest periods and rates, and set taxation bases for costs accordingly (including enhanced interest of 5% above judgment rate on indemnity costs from 20 June 2023).
9 Jun 2022

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1743
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP878/2020

The court refused to vary the order nisi because the Foundation was the practical winner (54 of 76 bills ordered for taxation) and monetary value alone does not determine effective victory; the Foundation’s conduct did not justify depriving it of costs and WG’s procedural and engagement shortcomings weighed against variation; therefore WG’s summons to vary the costs order was dismissed and the original costs order was upheld.
27 Apr 2022

WU KAI WAI AND OTHERS v. Occupants of Lot No.316 in D.D. 128, Yuen Long, New Territories AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 253
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3740/2017

Having considered the parties' conduct and the extent of success, the court varied the order nisi and ordered the 2nd defendant to pay 60% of the costs of the 1st to 6th plaintiffs of the action, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed; and ordered the 2nd defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by the application.
3 Dec 2021

NPYJ v. SMRC

Citation

[2021] HKFC 241
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9098/2018

The court partially allowed H's summons: it re-amended and reinstated specific questions where proportionate and relevant, disallowed or narrowed requests that were too wide or fishing, required answers to be verified by statement of truth, reinstated FDR, and maintained the existing trial timetable because the court found the orders of 8 October 2021 achievable with reasonable diligence.
29 Jul 2019

FOSHAN NANHAI BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD v. FOSHAN RUIFENG PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL FUEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2014

The court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi because the respondents' unsuccessful Challenge to the applicant's locus caused a significant increase in hearing time, preparation and delay; accordingly the respondents must pay 50% of the costs of the proceedings attributable to the Challenge, and the applicant's summons to vary the costs order nisi is allowed while the respondents' out-of-time variation summons is dismissed.
8 Sept 2017

CHEN HONGQING v. MI JINGTIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEN HONGQING v. MI JINGTIAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP962/2017

The court exercised its discretion to vary the Order Nisi: (1) the costs of the hearing of the Summons on 5 May 2017 are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 1st to 4th Defendants and the Intervener; (2) the costs of the Originating Summons (including the variation summons) are to be paid to the Plaintiff by the 1st to 4th Defendants and the Intervener jointly and severally, with a certificate for two counsel, taxed party to party if not agreed; rationale: interlocutory costs are discretionary, the Plaintiff established merits for appointment of receivers under s45, and the Intervener who oppos…
25 Oct 2016

POZDNYAEV, DENIS AND ANOTHER v. KINVAST LTD

Citation

POZDNYAEV, DENIS AND ANOTHER v. KINVAST LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1808/2014

The defendant succeeded on appeal so costs should follow the event; the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of showing exceptional circumstances to displace that rule; the application for certification of two counsel was refused because two counsel were not necessary and the fees would be disproportionate to the $2,000,000 claim; the order nisi was varied only to include costs reserved by Master Hui on 16 April 2015; no order as to costs on the competing summonses since neither party succeeded in substance.
22 Apr 2015

CHENG KWING YEUNG v. HONG KONG HAM HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

CHENG KWING YEUNG v. HONG KONG HAM HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/2014

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and held that neither the existence of an Employees Compensation award nor uncertainty as to future quantum justified departing from the costs follow the event principle; the appellant is entitled to the costs of the appeal and the costs of this application form part of those appeal costs.