TOTAL TREASURE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. RHT INDUSTRIES LTD

HCA 1746/2024

[2026] HKCFI 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1746 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.  I refer to my Decision dated 6 January 2026 herein (the “Decision”)  and adopt the terminology there used. By the Decision, I allowed D’s appeal against the order of Master Kinsey Kang dated 8 July 2025 granting summary judgment to Ps, and granted to D unconditional leave to defend the proceedings.

2.  At §41(2)  of the Decision I made a costs order nisi that the costs of Ps’ summons seeking summary judgment and the costs of D’s Notice of Appeal dated 21 July 2025, be in the cause of the proceedings.

3.  D has applied to vary the costs order such that D be awarded the costs of the appeal, although D accepts that the costs of the summary judgment summons (ie the costs below)  be in the cause.

4.  D’s main arguments include that: (1)  the appeal constitutes a distinct event from the hearing before the Master, the costs of which can and should be treated separately; and there is a presumptive rule to that effect in the case of appeals; and (2)  the Decision turned decisively on D’s delay/time bar defence which was found to raise triable issues, and was substantiated by detailed arguments raised by Ds; where a party advances a decisive point and success in the application dominates, the court may still award it costs even though other unmeritorious points were pursued.

5.  I have considered all of the points raised in the correspondence submitted by the parties on point.

6.  I have decided not to vary the costs order nisi.

7.  I consider that the fairest order, on the facts of this particular case, is that the costs both below and of the appeal, be in the cause of the proceedings.

8.  I take into account that: (i)  D raised a number of arguments both in the appeal and below which I did not consider raised reasonably arguable defences, and upon which substantial time and cost would have been expended; (ii)  in any event, I considered the application and appeal to be rather finely balanced (Decision §21); (iii)  where unconditional leave to defend is given, the usual order is costs in the cause.  I consider that that approach may be applied on an appeal if it is considered to be fair and just in all the circumstances.

9.  Accordingly, D’s application to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed, with costs to Ps to be summarily assessed if not agreed.  Ps should submit a Statement of Costs within 7 days, and D should submit any Statement of Objections within 7 days thereafter.