Re Lsp

HCMH 73/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MENTAL HEALTH CASE NO 73 OF 2025

________________

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.This is a relatively simple application under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136).  I am writing this decision principally in relation to costs.

2.The Mentally Incapacitated Person (“MIP”) is 71 years old.  He has undergone post operative complications in relation to his cerebral aneurysm back in 2014.

3.There was progressive physical and cognitive deteriorations and the matter worsened when his wife passed away in January 2024.  Since April 2024, he was in almost the current state and was admitted to care in an old age home.

4.The estate is relatively simple.  There was not much in the bank account since early 2024, and the MIP was maintained by the Applicant who is his younger brother who is also claiming reimbursement.

5.The only substantial asset is a Home Ownership Scheme (“HOS”) flat.  This sale is now sought in order to support the MIP.

6.The valuation report opined that the open market valuation is about HK$4,590,000, and sale in the secondary HOS market, which is sale to eligible buyers for HOS application, is HK$3,810,000.  Open market sale has to repay the outstanding premium to the Housing Authority.  The draft Order reflected the two different reserve prices.

7.The valuation report stated there was a 45% discount at the initial purchase of the HOS flat.  It was queried by the Court why the price differences of the open market and the HOS market valuation was so small.  Mr But, of counsel, was unable to answer because it was not explained in the valuation report.  Hence, clarification or confirmation from the valuer must be sought before finalizing the reserve prices in the Order and the abridged Order.

8.I now come to costs, which amounted to HK$311,128 in total, including HK$60,000 for counsel’s fees, and HK$13,500 for the two medical certificates.  The medical fees sought are reasonable.

9.In an ordinary Part II application without any complications and where the estate was not of substantial value, the costs allowed are normally between HK$50,000 to HK$80,000.

10.I asked whether there were any special features this case to take the costs way above the normal range.  Mr But said instructions had to be taken from the relatives residing overseas.  In fact, there were only three siblings, with one residing overseas, and there were not really any complications or infights between different camps in the family. 

11.It was also said that there were queries by the Official Solicitor on the reimbursement which to be calculated and answered.

12.I have gone through the expenses claimed in reimbursement with Mr But.  In comparison with persons in similar circumstances with needs and expenses, we have reached the satisfactory costs for the matter without even referring to one single invoice and receipt because they are well within the normal needs range.

13.Hence, the question is really why would there are huge time costs of over HK$210,000 for the solicitor.  I have also asked why counsel is needed in such a relatively simple case. 

14.It transpired that it was the first ever MIP case undertaken by the solicitors, and Mr But said lay client would have more confidence with appearance by counsel.  I daresay the solicitor would have more confidence with appearance by counsel.

15.I do not see in this case there are such facts to bring the costs well over the normal range of HK$50,000 to HK$80,000 for simple cases. 

16.Sometimes there may be cases where there are disagreement between family members, or the estate is particularly substantial in size, and of course the proportionality would be taken into account in the summary assessment of the costs.

17.In this case, I propose that the overall fees should be HK$75,000, and I would allow HK$30,000 for counsel’s fees because he has been assisting the Court with reasonable competence.  The rest would be for the time costs, and reimbursement.  Mr But has nothing further to say to the proposal.  Hence, it is so ordered.

18.I lift the prohibition against publication of this decision so it may be of some general reference.

Mr Adrian But, instructed by Solar Wong & Co., for the Applicant