Evercare Health Ltd v. So Lai Kan also known as Gobby So and Others

DCCJ 3316/2025

[2026] HKDC 1102

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 3316 OF 2025

------------------------------

------------------------------

---------------------------

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 2^nd 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 2^nd defendant’s affirmation in opposition and the plaintiff’s affirmation in reply), be paid by the 2^nd 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 2^nd defendant had put up an unwarranted resistance in the sense that this Court found that the evidence adduced by the 2^nd defendant had no bearing on the granting and continuation of the injunction order.

The 2^nd defendant’s opposition

6.The 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s statement of costs.

17.By summary assessment, I assess the plaintiff’s costs arising from the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd defendant’s affirmation in opposition and the plaintiff’s affirmation in reply), summarily assessed at $57,230, be paid by the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd defendant may request for an oral interpretation of this Decision by a Court Interpreter.

Mr Stephen Ku, instructed by Hui Doe & Sum Law Firm LLP, for the Plaintiff

The 2^nd Defendant acting in person