CHU KONG (suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders in (i) Ocean Sino Ltd (except LAU WING YAN) and (ii) PBM Asset Management Ltd) v. LAU WING YAN AND OTHERS

CACV 373/2023, [2026] HKCA 1676

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 373 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 1885 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.  On 23 July 2026, we handed down our decision[1] dismissing Chu’s application to vary the gross sum assessment in the CA Judgment handed down on 29 May 2026[2]. In §22 of our decision, we made a costs order against Chu as the unsuccessful party and assessed costs summarily awarded to the opposing parties at: $54,640 (Lau), $71,904 (Yen) and $69,562 (Greenwood). The costs order and gross sum assessment are orders nisi.

2.  On 6 August 2026, Chu issued a summons to vary the above costs order and gross sum assessment. There was annexed to his summons a two-page document giving a break-down of what he suggested should be reasonable costs. He sought an order that costs awarded to the opposing parties for his application to vary the gross sum assessment should be on a party and party basis, that the costs of each opposing party should be reduced to a lower reasonable amount or not more than $30,000, and that he should not have to pay the costs of the present application to vary the orders nisi.

3.  We directed the opposing parties to lodge submissions in answer within 14 days and indicated that the costs order in the present application and the gross sum assessment made as a result of the costs awarded to any party or parties in this application will be final orders.

4.  Chu contended that the legal teams of the opposing parties must be very familiar with these proceedings given their involvement in the long running disputes and hence their costs should be drastically reduced. In particular, the fees of counsel are manifestly excessive.

5.  The costs assessed on 23 July 2026 were on a party and party basis, as clearly stated in §22 of our decision on costs. It is wholly inappropriate for Chu to issue a summons seeking to vary the basis of assessment to party and party costs.

6.  As for the quantum of costs awarded to each opposing party, we do not agree with Chu there should be any further deduction. Familiarity with the issues in the disputes does not do away with the need to spend a reasonable amount of time to respond to different applications of Chu. The issues raised by Chu in a variety of applications are not identical, even though they may share common factual background. It may not be appropriate to engage new counsel who are more junior to deal with relatively simple applications as they would need to familiarise themselves with the proceedings and related matters.

7.  We dismiss Chu’s application to vary the costs order and gross sum assessment of 23 July 2026. We see no reason why he should not have to pay the costs incurred by the successful opposing parties.

8.  We award costs of the present application to Lau, Yen and Greenwood, who seek costs in the respective sums of $24,100, $32,838 and $37,984. We assess costs to these parties on a gross sum basis at: $24,100 (Lau), $25,713 (Yen) and $28,360 (Greenwood).