|
DCCJ 3316/2025
[2026] HKDC 1102
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 3316 OF 2025
------------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
EVERCARE HEALTH LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
SO LAI KAN（蘇麗芹）
also known as GOBBY SO |
1st Defendant |
| |
CHUNG KAI KEI（鍾啟基）
also known as JACKY CHUNG |
2nd Defendant |
| |
LEUNG TUEN YI（梁端儀）
also known as EVA LEUNG |
3rd Defendant |
| |
LEUNG LOK MAN（梁樂文） |
4th Defendant |
| |
|
(Discontinued) |
| |
SO YUN WAH |
5th Defendant |
| |
TSOI WING YIN（蔡詠賢） |
6th Defendant |
| |
NG KAI MING（吳啟明） |
7th Defendant |
------------------------------
| Before: |
Deputy District Judge B. Mak in Chambers (Paper Disposal) |
| Dates of the Plaintiff’s Written Submissions: |
2 April 2026 and 4 May 2026 |
| Date of the 2nd Defendant’s Written Submissions: |
15 April 2026 |
| Date of Decision: |
26 June 2026 |
---------------------------
DECISION
---------------------------
Introduction
1. By my Decision dated 9 February 2026, I made a costs order nisi that the costs of the summons be costs in the cause with certificate for counsel.
2. By a summons filed on 16 February 2026 (“the summons”), the plaintiff applied for a variation of the costs order nisi to the extent that:
(1) Costs in respect of the plaintiff’s application for the injunction order dated 13 June 2025 be to the plaintiff in the cause; and
(2) Costs arising from the 2nd defendant’s opposition to the plaintiff’s application for continuing the injunction order dated 13 June 2025 (including the costs in respect of the hearing on 10 November 2025 before Deputy District Judge B Mak, and the call-over hearing on 8 August 2025 before His Honour Judge Harold Leong, the 2nd defendant’s affirmation in opposition and the plaintiff’s affirmation in reply), be paid by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff forthwith, to be summarily assessed pursuant to the statement of costs dated 10 November 2025 as submitted to the Court during the hearing on 10 November 2025 and re-annexed hereto.
The plaintiff’s grounds
3. The plaintiff’s grounds are two-fold.
4. First, awarding immediate assessed costs to the plaintiff is in line with the spirit of Civil Justice Reform. The Court is encouraged to order immediate payment of costs of interlocutory proceedings and if possible by way of summary assessment of costs.
5. Secondly, the 2nd defendant had put up an unwarranted resistance in the sense that this Court found that the evidence adduced by the 2nd defendant had no bearing on the granting and continuation of the injunction order.
The 2nd defendant’s opposition
6. The 2nd defendant put forward 4 grounds in opposition.
7. First, as this Court has said that whether his defence is made out is to be resolved at the trial, it is inappropriate to order him to pay costs immediately.
8. Secondly, in the event that he is successful after trial, the plaintiff would be required to refund the costs to him.
9. Thirdly, it is the usual practice that the Court to order costs in the cause in the interlocutory applications pending the final determination of the main trial.
10. Fourthly, even if this Court is of the view that he has to pay costs to the plaintiff, there should be a stay of execution pending the final determination of the main trial.
Discussion
11. I bear in mind that the plaintiff is asking for the costs of the application for the injunction order dated 13 June 2025 (“the injunction order”) be to the plaintiff in the cause and for the costs of the 2nd defendant’s opposition to the plaintiff’s application for the continuation of the injunction order be paid immediately.
12. In the case of the granting of an injunction order after a contested hearing, the usual costs order is costs to follow the event: see Waxman & Anor v Li Fei Yu & Anor [2013] 6 HKC 424 at para 17.
13. Under Civil Justice Reform, the court is encouraged to order immediate payment of costs of interlocutory proceedings and if possible by way of summary assessment of costs. The objective is to discourage unnecessary and disproportionate interlocutory applications: see Midland Business Management Ltd v Lo Man Kui (No 2) [2011] 2 HKLRD 667 at para 9.
14. As the 2nd defendant has failed to oppose the continuation of the injunction order after a contested hearing, he should bear the costs arising out of his opposition. In line with the spirit of Civil Justice Reform, I am satisfied that immediate payment of such costs is justified.
15. Regarding the 2nd defendant’s oppositions, he has mixed up the costs in the interlocutory stage and the costs of the main action. Therefore, they are not of assistance to him at all.
Summary assessment of costs
16. I have considered the 2nd defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s statement of costs.
17. By summary assessment, I assess the plaintiff’s costs arising from the 2nd defendant’s opposition at $57,230.
Conclusion and Order
18. By reasons of the aforesaid, I vary the costs order nisi to the extent that:
(1) The costs in respect of the plaintiff’s application for the injunction order dated 13 June 2025 be to the plaintiff in the cause; and
(2) The costs arising from the 2nd defendant’s opposition to the plaintiff’s application for continuing the injunction order dated 13 June 2025 (including the costs in respect of the hearing on 10 November 2025 before Deputy District Judge B Mak, and the call-over hearing on 8 August 2025 before His Honour Judge Harold Leong, the 2nd defendant’s affirmation in opposition and the plaintiff’s affirmation in reply), summarily assessed at $57,230, be paid by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff forthwith.
19. I also make the same an Order Absolute.
Costs of the summons
20. Costs to follow the event. I order that the 2nd defendant shall pay the plaintiff the costs of the summons with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.
Interpretation of this Decision
21. In case of need, the 2nd defendant may request for an oral interpretation of this Decision by a Court Interpreter.
| |
( B. Mak )
Deputy District Judge
|
Mr Stephen Ku, instructed by Hui Doe & Sum Law Firm LLP, for the Plaintiff
The 2nd Defendant acting in person
|