Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 267/2025, [2026] HKCA 527

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1458

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1190 OF 2024)

____________________

	IN THE MATTER of the property known as Flat A on 3^rd Floor and Car Parking Spaces Nos. 5 & 5A on the Car Port Floor, Hatton House, 15 Kotewall Road, Hong Kong
	and
	IN THE MATTER of a Legal Charge / Mortgage dated 18^th July 2017 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 17081001760133 made between the Defendants as the Mortgagor and the Plaintiff as the Mortgagee
	and
	IN THE MATTER of an application for an Order for possession and payment pursuant to Order 88 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A)

____________________

BETWEEN
	THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LIMITED	Plaintiff
	and
	TARJOTO HERU HIDAJAT	1^st Defendant
	FAVA LUIGINA	2^nd Defendant

____________________

Before:

Hon Anthony Chan JA and Harris J in Court

Dates of Written Submissions:	13 & 27 February, 6 & 9 March 2026
Date of Decision on Costs:	31 March 2026

_____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

_____________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.By a Decision dated 16 January 2026 ([2026] HKCA 22), this Court dismissed the Defendants’ application for a stay of execution pending appeal. A costs order nisi was made in favour of the Plaintiff, and the costs were summarily assessed on indemnity basis at HK$100,000.

2.A Summons was filed by the Defendants on 30 January 2026 (“Summons”) seeking an order that they are not liable for the said costs. The Summons was supported by an affirmation of the Defendants filed on the same day. These sets of submissions have been lodged by the Defendants on respectively 13 February, 6 March and 9 March 2026. The last set of submissions was not compliant with the directions of this Court, but it has been considered. The Plaintiff has lodged its submissions on 2 March 2026.

3.We regret to say that none of the Defendants’ materials has sought to address the only relevant questions, namely, (1) why they should not be liable for their failed stay application and (2) the quantum of the costs. Instead, the Defendants continue to argue that Plaintiff has unlawfully withheld certain insurance payment to them. Such arguments are simply irrelevant for the present purpose.

4.In the premises, the Summons is dismissed. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. We order that the costs of the Summons be to the Plaintiff. No comment has been made by the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs. On summary assessment, the Plaintiff’s costs are assessed on indemnity basis at HK$28,346.