LAU SIU HUNG AND KWOK SIN KWAN (BEING THE JOINT AND SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF TOM IP & PARTNERS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS & DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)) v. P&T INTERNATIONAL INC.

CACV 104/2022, [2026] HKCA 59

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 104 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO 216 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.  In our judgment dated 18 November 2025 (“Judgment”)[1] allowing the Liquidators’ appeal, we made an order nisi that P & T, the respondent, do pay the Liquidators’ costs both here and below. P & T has applied to vary the order so that there be no order as to the costs of (1)  the appeal, (2)  the Liquidators’ application to this court for leave to appeal, (3)  the Liquidators’ application below for leave to appeal, and (4)  the Liquidators’ section 286B summons itself.

2.  On behalf of P & T, Mr Justin Lam submits that the judge’s misapprehension of the scope of the Liquidators’ application (see Judgment §35)  stemmed from the Liquidators’ own submissions before the judge that the application was made under section 286B(1)(c)  and not section 286B(1)(d). We do not think this is a valid point.  As explained in Judgment §35, the scope of the application was in the final analysis clear, despite P & T’s attempt to capitalise on Mr Lau’s confusion about the legal provisions.

3.  It is also submitted that certain authorities and arguments advanced on behalf of the Liquidators were not adopted by this court.  We do not think this warrants an order depriving the Liquidators of the whole or part of their costs.  It is not uncommon that the court did not find all of the arguments or authorities relied on by winning party to be apposite.  As Bokhary PJ counseled in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Hongkong International Terminals Ltd [2014] 4 HKLRD 412 (at §7), the power to deprive a successful party of costs because he raised issues on which it did not succeed is to be approached with due circumspection so as not to undermine the utility of the general rule that costs follow the event.  This is not a case where the arguments that did not find favour with this court took up much additional time and costs.  There is no reason for costs not to follow the event.

4.  Finally it is also submitted that there was substantial delay in the prosecution of the appeal.  As explained in Judgment §37, this court allowed the appeal notwithstanding we had misgivings about the delay.  This would be so whether or not we took into account the explanation of the delay offered by Ms Eu from the bar table.  There is nothing to suggest that the delay had led to an increase in the costs incurred.  In the circumstances of this case we do not think the delay is a reason to deprive the Liquidators of costs.

5.  Accordingly, P & T’s summons is dismissed with costs.