WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

HCA 305/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 305 OF 2021

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON APPLICATION
TO VARY COSTS ORDER NISI

________________________

1.  On 29 December 2025, I handed down the Judgment in this action with an order nisi that the defendants should bear the plaintiff’s costs.

2.  On 12 January 2026, the defendants applied to vary the costs order to reduce it to 70% (or any other proportion that the court deems fit).

3.  Directions were given for the parties to provide written submissions regarding the application, which I have considered.

4.  The post-Civil Justice Reform approach of the courts to costs orders was succinctly set out in Pfeiffer GmbH v Cheung Hay Kit trading as Sun Wai Construction (CACV245/2013) as follows [§§20-21]:-

“20. ... Although the general rule that costs will follow the event still plays a significant part, it is but a starting point from which the court is more ready to depart, mindful that too robust an application of the general rule encourages litigants to increase the costs of litigation since it discourages them from being selective as to the points they take. And it is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be deprived of his costs of a particular issue on which he has failed.

21. Under Order 62 rule 5(1)(e), the court may take into account ‘the conduct of all the parties’. Rule 5(2) provides that ‘conduct’ for this purpose includes ‘(a) whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue; (b) the manner in which a party has pursued or defended his case or a particular allegation or issue; (c) whether a claimant who has succeeded in his claim, in whole or in part, exaggerated his claim; and (d) conduct before, as well as during, the proceedings’.”

5.  The present action was pursued by the executrix of the Deceased’s estate against:-

(a) the 1^st defendant in respect of two main issues, in which his case was that he was the sole owner of the Paragon property, and that he was entitled to receive or utilize all the sums in question; and

(b) the 2^nd defendant, her case being that she was entitled to all the sums received by her.

6.  For reasons given in the Judgment, I found in respect of the 1^st defendant, that he was not the sole owner of the Paragon property but that the Deceased was beneficial owner of half of it, and that the 1^st defendant was not entitled to the sums received or utilized by him, save for a sum of $750,000 which I found was a gift from the Deceased, certain sums used for the Deceased’s Phoenix Heights property, and sums used for the Deceased’s own expenses from July 2013 until his death. I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in respect of registration fees for the 1^st defendant’s vehicle ($2,711 x 3), and her claims in respect of the Deceased’s Old Age Allowance ($54,750) and Higher Disability Allowance ($54,492.59). I found the 2^nd defendant liable in respect of the claims against her.

7.  In the exercise of the court’s discretion regarding costs, I would note that court time was mostly taken up by evidence on (a) whether the Mei Foo properties were owned by the Mother, as it was the 1^st defendant’s case that the Mother owned the proceeds of 34B and had gifted them to him, which he used for the down payment of the Paragon property, and (b) what was the Deceased’s intentions when he opened the joint accounts, with the 1^st defendant advancing various alternative scenarios.

8.  The 1^st defendant’s defence had in fact changed considerably from the spreadsheets he had provided to the plaintiff, to his solicitors’ response to the letters from the plaintiff’s solicitors, to his affirmation in opposition to the Beddoe application, to his pleadings, to his witness statements, and even his evidence at trial.

9.  Under those circumstances, it would have been difficult for the plaintiff to have conducted her case in less time or to have been more selective in the pursuit of the Estate’s claims. In the result, the Estate has been successful in the vast bulk of its claims, and in any event time wise, its unsuccessful claims had not led to any increase in the costs of litigation.

10.  Applying the guidelines in Pfeiffer and taking all the circumstances into account, I would decline to vary the costs order nisi which is hereby made absolute. The application to vary is dismissed. The costs of the application are part of the costs of the trial, and hence of the action to be borne by the defendants.