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

FCMP 234 /2022

[2025] HKFC 140

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NUMBER 234 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is my decision on costs of the judgment that was handed down on 25 July 2025 (“Judgment”). See: [2025] HKFC 117

2.  I adopt the abbreviations used in the Judgment.

3.  There are two aspects of costs in these proceedings. The costs of the LN and LK. The costs of LK has been dealt with in the Judgment. The only outstanding issue is the costs of LN.

Legal principles

4.  It is trite that the award of costs is a matter in the court’s discretion.

5.  The general rule is that costs to follow the event.

6.  Order 62 rule 5 of the Rules of High Court and the Rules of District Court provide that the court in exercising its discretion as to costs may take into account the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A rule 1, any written offer made, the conduct of all the parties, whether a claimant who has succeeded in his claim, in whole or in part, or had exaggerated his claim.

LN’s costs

7.  There is one special feature in this case. LN’s legal team told His Honour Judge CK Chan at the Master’s appeal hearing on 14 December 2023 that they would not be charging LN for his legal fees and would only look to the other side for legal costs in the event of a favourable costs order. See: [2024] HKFC 59 at [57].

8.  As to the submissions on costs, my observations and conclusions are as follows:

(1)  The relief awarded to LN after trial was HK$785,032, being the sum of HK$223,128 for the benefit of LN up to the stage of completion of his secondary school studies, plus HK$561,904 if he continues with full time studies after secondary school;

(2)  From the without prejudice offers (“WP offers”)  submitted by the parties, it reveals that a sum of HK$800,000 was offered to LN as early as 28 July 2022 (which was prior to the commencement of these proceedings). On 11 October 2022, LN’s solicitors held the view that HK$800,000 was on the low side;

(3)  Parties thereafter engaged in various WP negotiations. In January 2025, with the assistance of a mediator, parties reached an agreement on the quantum of HK$1,950,000. LN’s legal costs in the sum of HK$650,000 would be paid out of the said amount. It was the understanding of LK that the said amount would be paid into the court, while LN requested the said sum be paid to his solicitors as trustee;

(4)  LK was concerned whether service charge would be incurred for the proposed trusteeship and whether there would be an issue of conflict of interest if the handling partner of LN’s solicitors was to be the trustee of the money to be paid to LN. LN’s solicitors did not answer LK’s enquiries. As a result, parties were not able to reach settlement;

(5)  During the course of WP negotiations, the Mother’s proposed offer for settlement ranged from HK$3.3 million to HK$5.3 million, with costs to LN, was obviously far from reasonable and her legal representatives did not take a proactive step to answer valid enquiries put forward by LK;

(6)  If LN had accepted the HK$800,000 settlement offer prior to the commencement of these proceedings, this litigation could have been avoided;

(7)  In my view, costs play a crucial role in regulating the process of litigation and incentivizing good litigation conduct;

(8)  In the Judgment, I found that the Mother’s claims were far in excess of what constituted reasonable maintenance to accommodate LN’s needs. She was being dishonest with the accommodation and meal expenses at the Hostel, and I also found that the Mother’s proposed plans were not in the best interest of LN. I rejected her proposals which, in my view, point strongly in favour of no order as to costs;

(9)  Upon reviewing the without prejudice correspondences, fortify my view that there should be no order as to costs.

Conclusion

9.  For the reasons set out above, I make no order as to costs in respect of LN’s application, including all costs reserved.