Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of costs

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2026

MAK PO NGAN 對 CHEUNG YUNG HO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 112
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6282/2024

The application to vary the interim costs order was dismissed because the earlier judgment established the plaintiff's claims had no real prospect and were frivolous or vexatious; the plaintiff provided no evidence of defendant misconduct or unreasonable conduct warranting departure from the ordinary costs rule; unrelated allegations and criminal concerns are irrelevant to the civil court's discretion on costs; accordingly the interim costs order was made absolute and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application assessed at HK$10,000.
30 Jun 2025

SEK TUNG FAT 對朱文傑 and 朱惠嫻 trading as 新發記

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1266
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1811/2023

The application to vary the provisional costs order was dismissed because the respondents did not show any special circumstances to displace the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; their evidence merely disputes the substantive judgment which must be challenged on appeal, and claimed financial hardship is not a sufficient basis to vary the costs order.
28 Nov 2024

W, YC formerly known as W, YC v. T, WK

Citation

[2024] HKFC 212
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1332/2022

The court held that F and H were the winners on the principal issues (common intention and major payment of the down payment) and that Petitioner’s case failed; there was no reasonable counter-offer from Petitioner so the timing of F and H's offers did not justify reducing their costs entitlement; Petitioner’s asserted financial hardship and late offers did not amount to special circumstances to vary the costs order nisi; and a certificate for two counsel was refused on proportionality grounds given the monetary stakes. Consequently both variation summonses were dismissed and the costs order…
10 Oct 2024

LI JIA HENG v. GOLDEN WORLD MOTORS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1679
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2932/2020

Because the contractual claim and the unjust enrichment claim substantially overlapped such that no significant incremental time or expense was caused by the abandonment, and because GWM failed to demonstrate any material increase in length or cost from issues raised by the court or from the amendment application (the latter already addressed), there was no principled basis to vary the costs order nisi; therefore the summons was dismissed and the original costs nisi made absolute.
1 Nov 2022

SHUN ON FINANCE LTD v. WONG FUNG KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1095
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1428/2016

Leave to appeal was granted because there is a real issue of law—whether estoppel by deed can defeat a claim of constructive/resulting trust as against a third party—which Tsang Chuen supports as having reasonable prospects of success, and there is a public interest in settling the point; consequently leave was granted and the costs and ancillary applications were ordered to follow or be adjourned pending the appeal.
9 Nov 2021

XU YING v. XU WEIHONG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1670
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV421/2021

The application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed because the plaintiff was the overall winner and the plaintiff’s failure on the malicious falsehood point was not sufficiently separate and substantial to warrant a reduction (including a 50% reduction) of the costs awarded to him.
11 Oct 2021

NG CHUN SANG also known as NG CHUN SUNG AND ANOTHER v. PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LOT NO. 544 AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF LOT NO. 539 BOTH IN DEMARCATION DISTRICT NO. 77 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1274
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3463/2018

Service was ineffective because mail sent to the address given by the 2nd defendant was returned as incomplete/non-existent and the plaintiffs had or could have used an alternative known address (Fanling), therefore the earlier summary judgment was irregular and set aside; the plaintiffs' proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal is refused; the variation of the costs order nisi is refused and costs follow the event in favour of the 2nd defendant.
8 Jun 2021

CHAN HON, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF POON LAI MING, DECEASED v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LTD formerly known as BAYER DIAGNOSTICS LTD and formerly known as BAYER DIAGNOSTICS LTD and formerly known as CHIRON LTD and formerly known as CIBA CORNING DIAGNOSTICS (H.K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 830
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV53/2020

Because the 2nd and 3rd defendants ultimately failed in their appeal against Bharwaney J and did not advance the apportionment argument below, costs should follow the event; the application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the plaintiff was awarded costs with a certificate for two counsel and his own costs to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
15 Mar 2021

YCKS v. MPKC

Citation

[2021] HKFC 44
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5771/2018

The respondent failed to discharge the burden required to displace the usual costs rule; the petitioner engaged in mediation sufficiently and provided reasonable explanation for ceasing further mediation, the petitioner did not conduct litigation excessively and the respondent had failed to disclose his financial position, therefore the summons to vary costs is dismissed and the respondent must pay the petitioner's costs to be taxed if not agreed with the petitioner's legal aid costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
10 Jul 2020

NPYJ v. SMRC

Citation

[2020] HKFC 136
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9098/2018

The court allowed slip-rule amendments limited to correcting typographical errors (spelling of proposed experts), substituting Affirmations/Affidavits, inserting the full carpark address and amending costs wording to reflect the courts manifest intention, but refused substantive additions or new obligations (bank statements, cancellation/publication/apology, compliance orders) and dismissed the Respondents application to vary costs orders because those orders were perfected or reserved and the Respondents grounds did not fall within the narrow permissible categories to revisit sealed order…