Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice negotiations

Legal area

Court

22 Aug 2025

LN, by his next friend A, LM v. LK, The Executor to the Estate of LC, Deceased

Citation

[2025] HKFC 140
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP234/2022

No order as to costs was made for LN because of the special factual matrix: LN's legal team had indicated they would not charge their client and intended to seek costs from the other side; extensive without prejudice negotiations (including an early pre-litigation offer of HK$800,000 and a later mediated proposal) and the parties' conduct including failures to answer valid enquiries justified departure from the presumption that costs follow the event.
1 Apr 2016

BANCO DEL AUSTRO,S A v. REGAL PROSPER TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BANCO DEL AUSTRO,S A v. REGAL PROSPER TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/2015

The court could not conclude on the affidavits before it that a binding settlement had been formed because the correspondence marked 'subject to contract' and the surrounding drafts indicated the parties did not intend to be bound until a formal agreement was executed and material terms remained unresolved; consequently the summons seeking discontinuance was dismissed, but the Mareva injunction was varied to permit partial payment and deposit pending the action.
9 Apr 2015

NLT v. LYKJ

Citation

NLT v. LYKJ
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8680/2012

The court found both parties bore responsibility for failed settlement negotiations: the husband made an imperfect, inadequately detailed offer and did not follow up; the wife did not engage with or propose workable alternatives; a subsequent procedural mistake by the husband's then solicitors caused delay but did not justify indemnity costs. Consequently the court exercised its discretion to make a split costs order: no order up to 1 September 2013; from 2 September 2013 to 10 March 2015 the husband to pay 50% of the wife's costs on a party and party basis (taxed if not agreed) with certific…
14 May 2013

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS

Citation

TO PUI KUI v. NG KWOK PIU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA523/2008

The letters relied upon by Philip's Group were not self-contained open offers limited to the issues before the court and were made in circumstances where Without Prejudice settlement time was misused for tactical advantage; accordingly they could not attract the proposed costs sanctions and the plaintiff, having succeeded on the substantive thrust of her case, was entitled to her costs to be paid by the defendants who opposed her (the 1st, 4th, 5th and 7th defendants), including costs for essential witnesses, with taxation if not agreed.
7 May 2010

CHEMAY INC v. DONG GANG INVESTMENT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEMAY INC v. DONG GANG INVESTMENT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1039/2009

The Master was correct to dismiss the summary judgment application because the defendants raised arguable, bona fide defences which turn on the proper construction of Clause C of the Management Agreement and on disputed factual matters (notably who 'operated' the designated account and responsibility for the login password). Those disputes cannot properly be resolved on affidavit and require trial; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
20 Feb 2009

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR

Citation

THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. A SOLICITOR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV31/2008

The Court upheld the three month suspension imposed on the second respondent as not plainly wrong, set aside the finding and penalties under complaint 25 because the agreed facts did not establish that the second respondent made the representation at the February meeting, and reduced and substituted the costs awards to HKD 30,000 for the applicant's solicitors and HKD 15,000 for the tribunal clerk.
28 Nov 2005

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR AND ANOTHER v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2004

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because no valid ground of appeal was demonstrated and the issues did not raise a matter of great general or public importance; the Court held the Tribunal's costs orders were wrong in principle and emphasized that the Tribunal must draft its own decisions.
11 May 2005

ORIENT BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HIANG KIE HONG KONG LTD

Citation

ORIENT BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HIANG KIE HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV220/2004

No binding settlement was reached on 23 January 2001 because essential material terms — notably the method for disposing of the proceedings and the date for payment of rental arrears — remained unresolved; the deposit clause permitted forfeiture and the landlord was not required to give credit for the deposit against a claim for mesne profits; no equitable relief against forfeiture was warranted on the facts.
6 Jun 2003

BALLI KLOCKNER ASIA LTD v. SAHAVIRIYA STEEL INDUSTRIES PUBLIC CO LTD

Citation

BALLI KLOCKNER ASIA LTD v. SAHAVIRIYA STEEL INDUSTRIES PUBLIC CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL25/2003

The judge held that any non-disclosure by the plaintiff was not material because the defendant had committed fraud and the attempted negotiations/offers to retake goods would not have significantly affected the decision; the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation, therefore the Mareva injunction should stand and the application to discharge it was dismissed.
18 May 1999

PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. BB TELECOM LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. BB TELECOM LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19538/1998

The court stayed execution of the Master's order because there was a real and arguable case for set-off/counterclaim and a contested without prejudice issue which could render the appeal nugatory if execution proceeded; additionally the Master imposed an unconditional payment-into-court requirement without following the proper procedure or allowing the defendants to demonstrate inability to comply, and the defendants filed an affidavit of means showing serious prejudice would result from payment into court.