Zhang Chunxia v. Mr. Tin Corporation Ltd Trading As Aberdeen Tin Kee Fishball Noodles

DCPI 1281/2025

[2026] HKDC 1873

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 1281 OF 2025

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

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

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

DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

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

The Costs Order

1.In the costs decision (by paper disposal) of this Court dated 15 May 2026, I made the following orders (§21):

(1)  Costs of the action be to the Plaintiff (“P”), payable by the Defendant (“D”), at a level similar to those applicable in the Small Claims Tribunal, such costs to be summarily assessed by this court; and

(2)  D shall have 40% of the costs of D’s Summons, payable by P, to be summarily assessed by this court.

2.P did not submit her Statement of Costs for summary assessment.

3.Upon the order under §21(2) becoming absolute, D submitted a Statement of Costs dated 5 August 2026 in respect of costs of D’s Summons filed on 15 January 2026.

4.D’s Summons relates to matters of costs only regarding P’s entitlement to and scale of costs applicable to the action. The costs arguments were premised mainly on the triviality of the alleged scald injury to P’s forearm from spilt hot soup from a noodle bowl, for which the action was settled by P’s acceptance of sanctioned payments totalling $28,000 made by D.

5.I was surprised to note that in respect of D’s Summons on simple costs matters dealt with by paper disposal, D’s costs claimed, as stated in its Statement of Costs, came to a total of $142,910.

6.The substantial time incurred and enormous costs claimed are wholly disproportionate to the trivial claim, and in my view make a complete mockery of the Civil Justice Reform aiming to promote a sense of reasonable proportion and procedural economy in the conduct of proceedings.

7.The alleged total number of professional work hours of some 34 hours of the 2 handling solicitors Mr Anthony Lai (year of admission 2002) and Mr Jonathan Tong (year of admission 2018) in dealing with D’s Summons is outrageous and cannot be justified given the nature of the Summons.

8.In conducting summary assessment of the costs of D’s Summons, I have borne in mind the guidance in Home Office v Lownds [2002] 1 WLR 2450 and the tests of proportionality and necessity of the costs claimed. I have no doubt that D’s costs claimed are wholly disproportionate, unreasonable and unnecessary given the nature of the action, the size of P’s claim and D’s Summons solely on costs.

9.Taking a holistic approach in considering D’s Statement of Costs, I have come to the view that reasonable costs should be no more than $45,000. D’s entitlement to 40% of those costs is thus $18,000.

Order

10.I therefore order that P do pay 40% costs of D’s Summons, summarily assessed at $18,000, within 21 days from the date hereof.

11.In view of the intervention in the practice of P’s solicitors, I direct that a copy of this Decision be sent by the court to (i) P’s solicitors on record; (ii) P at her address, if any, shown on the court record; and (iii) Messrs Robertsons, the Intervention Agent appointed by the Council.

Raymond Lam & Associates, for the plaintiff

M C A Lai Solicitors LLP, for the defendant