Shan Ahmed v. Mox Bank Ltd and Another

DCCJ 7268/2024

[2026] HKDC 1320

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 7268 OF 2024

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

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

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

DECISION

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

A.  Introduction

1.This is the Plaintiff’s application to vary the costs order nisi made by the court in the judgment dated 26 May 2026 (the “Judgment”).

2.In these proceedings, the Plaintiff claims that in around March 2023, a fraudster used his personal data to open a bank account in the Plaintiff’s name with the 1^st Defendant. The fraudster subsequently obtained a credit card and bank loans using this account.

3.The Plaintiff lodged complaints regarding the alleged fraud with the North Point Police Station in August 2023 and the Tseung Kwan O Police Station in June 2024. On 27 June 2024, the Plaintiff attended an identity parade and identified the alleged fraudster, whom the police subsequently arrested.

4.The Plaintiff sought $3 million damages against the 2^nd Defendant for its alleged severe inaction, slow and inefficient investigation, and dismissive approach toward the fraud, which the Plaintiff claims caused acute hardship, stress, and financial loss.

5.On 20 January 2025, the 2^nd Defendant applied to strike out the portions of the Statement of Claim concerning it and sought the dismissal of the action. On 25 July 2025, Master Bianca Yu struck out the relevant parts of the Statement of Claim and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2^nd Defendant, ruling that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and/or was frivolous or vexatious (“Master Yu’s Decision”).

6.The Plaintiff appealed Master Yu’s Decision on 11 August 2025. On 14 October 2025, following a hearing on 9 October 2025, the court dismissed the appeal, finding the Plaintiff’s claim to have no foundation, impossible to succeed, and frivolous (the “Appeal Decision”).

7.On 26 January 2026, the Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal out of time against the Appeal Decision (“Leave to Appeal Application”). In the Judgment, the court dismissed the Leave to Appeal Application and made a costs order nisi that the Plaintiff pay the 2^nd Defendant’s costs for the application, with such costs to be summarily assessed on paper (the “Costs Order nisi”).

8.By a summons dated 1 June 2026 (the “Summons”), the Plaintiff applies to vary the Costs Order nisi without specifying how it should be varied (the “Variation Application”).

9.On 10 June 2026, the court ordered, inter alia, that the Variation Application be disposed of on paper.

B.  Relevant Legal Principles

10.It is a well-established principle that the court possesses a wide discretion regarding costs, which must be exercised judicially. The starting point is that costs should follow the event.

11.Order 62 rule 5(1) of the Rules of District Court (Cap 336H) sets out the factors that the court shall, as may be appropriate in the circumstances, take into account when exercising this discretion. These factors include the underlying objectives set out in Order 1A rule 1, the conduct of the parties, the extent of a party’s success (even if not wholly successful), and any admissible settlement offers. Order 62 rule 5(2) further defines the conduct of the parties for the purpose of rule 5(1)(e).

12.On hearing the parties on costs, the court will not revisit the substantive decision it has made. That is a matter for appeal. See: Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, §42/5B/1. I will therefore not deal with the Plaintiff’s submissions on the substance of his claim.

C.  The Variation Application

13.The Plaintiff’s reasons for the Variation Application, as stated in his affirmation filed on 1 June 2026 and written submissions dated 22 June 2026 and 6 July 2026 respectively, can be summarised as follows:

(1)  It is unfair for the Plaintiff to pay the 2^nd Defendant’s legal fees because his financial loss exceeds the 2^nd Defendant’s costs in this action.

(2)  The Judiciary should exercise its judicial power independently from the 2^nd Defendant and the Department of Justice.

(3)  The Plaintiff has been entirely deprived of payment due to the 2^nd Defendant’s error. The court may make a wasted costs order against the Department of Justice under Order 62 rule 8.

(4)  The court is allegedly “mentally torturing foreigners to force them to pay a certain amount of costs”.

(5)  The 2^nd Defendant’s delay was intentional and caused damages to the Plaintiff.

(6)  The Plaintiff will apply for judicial review against the 2^nd Defendant.

(7)  The Plaintiff lacks the funds to pay the court fees.

(8)  The 2^nd Defendant and the Department of Justice have allegedly launched a campaign against the Plaintiff, for which they should be held responsible if the Plaintiff is personally harmed or involved in further dishonesty cases.

(9)  There is no unreasonable conduct on the Plaintiff’s part.

14.The court addresses these grounds as follows:

(1)  Regarding the fairness of costs: The Costs Order nisi is appropriate because the Leave to Appeal Application was dismissed for reasons given in the Judgment, and the 2^nd Defendant’s conduct does not justify departing from the general rule that costs should follow the event. Whether the Plaintiff’s alleged losses exceed the 2^nd Defendant’s costs is entirely irrelevant to the court’s exercise of its discretion in awarding costs.

(2)  Regarding judicial independence: The court has consistently exercised its judicial power independently throughout these proceedings. The Plaintiff’s allegation to the contrary is a bare, unsubstantiated allegation.

(3)  Regarding the 2^nd Defendant’s alleged error and wasted costs: The Plaintiff’s claim based on the 2^nd Defendant’s alleged error has already been struck out. The Plaintiff failed to point to any conduct by the Department of Justice that caused any party to incur wasted costs. There is nothing in the circumstances to justify ordering the Department of Justice to compensate the Plaintiff for any costs.

(4)  Regarding alleged discrimination: In making the Costs Order nisi, the court exercised its discretion judicially and did not discriminate against any foreigners.

(5)  Regarding alleged delays: The Plaintiff commenced this action on 9 December 2024. The 2^nd Defendant promptly applied to strike out the claim on 20 January 2025 and successfully did so on 25 July 2025. Therefore, there was no delay on the 2^nd Defendant’s part in these proceedings. Insofar as the Plaintiff complains about the 2^nd Defendant’s alleged delay in its criminal investigation, the Plaintiff’s claim has already been struck out.

(6)  Regarding judicial review: The Plaintiff’s intended judicial review application is entirely unrelated to these proceedings or the Costs Order nisi.

(7)  Regarding the Plaintiff’s financial capability: The Plaintiff’s impecuniosity is not a valid reason for varying the Costs Order nisi.

(8)  Regarding alleged campaign: The Plaintiff’s allegation of a campaign against him is a bare, unsubstantiated allegation.

(9)  Regarding the Plaintiff’s conduct: In making the Costs Order nisi, the court did not make the costs order against the Plaintiff because of his conduct. Rather, the court made the Costs Order nisi because the Leave to Appeal Application was dismissed.

D.  Conclusion

15.For all the reasons above, I dismiss the Variation Application. The Costs Order nisi is made absolute. The 2^nd Defendant has filed its Statement of Costs dated 10 April 2026. I order that the Plaintiff do file and serve his list of objections to 2^nd Defendant’s Statement of Costs dated 10 April 2026 (if any) within 14 days from the date of this decision. The Court will then summarily assess the 2^nd Defendant’s costs of the Leave to Appeal Application on paper.

16.Costs should follow the event. I make a costs order nisi that the Plaintiff do pay the 2^nd Defendant’s costs of the Variation Application, such costs to be summarily assessed on papers. Should any party seek to vary the costs order nisi, such party should take out an application within 14 days from the date of this decision.

17.The 2^nd Defendant has submitted its Statement of Costs dated 29 June 2026. Should there be no application to vary the above costs order nisi, I order that the Plaintiff do file and serve his list of objections to the 2^nd Defendant’s Statement of Costs dated 29 June 2026 (if any) within 21 days from the date of this decision. The Court will then summarily assess the 2^nd Defendant’s costs of the Variation Application on paper.

The Plaintiff acting in person

Mr Mike Yau of Department of Justice, for the 2^nd Defendant