Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2025

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN (黃錦新), by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA (黃月霞) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1025
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2021

The appeal (CACV 173/2021) is dismissed; neither the Defendants' nor the Plaintiff's proposed saving clauses were necessary or appropriate; the 1st to 3rd Defendants must pay the Plaintiff's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for two counsel; costs of the summons awarded 70% to the Plaintiff to be assessed summarily with limited leave to object.
5 Jul 2023

SUEN HUNG SHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 820
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV147/2020

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi of 30 May 2023 because the Applicant delayed over two years without valid reason, his proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable, and the 'Without Prejudice save as to cost' letter was irrelevant; the original indemnity costs assessment of HKD 24,887 stands and the Commissioner is entitled to additional costs of HKD 4,674 for the variation application.
15 Apr 2011

CHINA BRILLIANT LTD v. KABLE ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA BRILLIANT LTD v. KABLE ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2373/2008

The court varied the order nisi and ordered the plaintiff to pay 95% of the costs of the action (including reserved and mediation costs) to D2 because the plaintiff's claim demanded disproportionate time and resources compared with D2's counterclaim and the plaintiff's settlement offers required acceptance by all defendants and thus did not cause the trial; however the plaintiff's conduct did not justify taxation on an indemnity basis.
10 Jun 1994

TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.

Citation

TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA3/1994

The court found the evidence warranted the inference that Miss Cheung was authorised by the defendant to sign the provisional rental agreement and that the claimant was a party entitled to the agreed service charge; the adjudicator erred in law by not drawing that inference; appeal allowed and judgment entered for the claimant for $14,000 with interest at 9.5% p.a. from 18 October 1992.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEN JINHUI v. WONG KAM SAN (黃錦新), by his guardian ad litem, HUANG YUEXIA (黃月霞) AND OTHERS

SUEN HUNG SHAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

CHINA BRILLIANT LTD v. KABLE ENGINEERING LTD AND OTHERS

TAI TUNG REALTY (AGENCY) CO. v. MOONBA LTD.