Re Sunni International Ltd

On 12 October 2026, the Court of Appeal (Au JA, with Barma JA concurring) handed down its decision in Re Sunni International Ltd [2026] HKCA 1789, varying the costs order nisi it had earlier made in Lo's favour on his successful extension of time application. Ms Ann Lee, instructed by TK Tsui & Co, acted for the Liquidator, who was unsuccessful on the variation.

The underlying dispute concerns the public examination of Lo ordered in the winding up of Sunni International Ltd. Lo, with leave of the Judge below, appeals against the Examination Order. His former solicitors filed the Notice of Appeal on 26 April 2019, but failed to lodge a copy of the sealed Examination Order as required by O.59 r.5(1)(a). Acting in person some four years later, Lo eventually took out a summons on 24 July 2023 seeking an extension of time. The Liquidator, represented by Senior Counsel leading two juniors, opposed strenuously, contending the four-year delay was inexcusable and that the appeal was academic.

In a previous decision ([2025] HKCA 753), the Court of Appeal allowed Lo's extension of time application on the basis that the delay, while very significant, was attributable to the oversight of his former solicitors, and that the appeal was not academic. The court then made a costs order nisi in Lo's favour, summarily assessed. Lo filed a Statement of Costs seeking HK$1,337,500; the Liquidator contended costs should not exceed HK$2,000 and applied to vary the costs order nisi, seeking instead to have costs of the time summons borne by Lo under O.62 r.3(4).

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that: (1) the Liquidator's grounds for opposing the time extension were largely the same arguments the court had already rejected in the substantive decision, and the opposition was not "so unmeritorious and unreasonable" as to attract a costs sanction against the Liquidator (§§13-14); (2) the four-year delay was per se very significant, and having regard to procedural and costs economy under O.1A r.1 and O.62 r.5(1)(aa), the just order was no order as to costs of the Time Summons (§15); (3) the Liquidator was also unsuccessful on the variation, so no order as to costs of the Variation Summons either (§17).

The Costs Order Nisi was accordingly varied: no order as to costs of either summons.

Two practical points follow. First, winning an extension of time does not automatically translate into a costs order in the applicant's favour; a respondent's opposition must be substantively unreasonable, not merely unsuccessful, before costs will be displaced from the default position under O.62 r.3(4). Second, Lo's Statement of Costs improperly included costs of the substantive appeal rather than confining itself to the time summons; the court flagged this as "plainly inappropriate" (fn 4) without yet assessing the appropriate figure. Statements of costs on discrete applications should be tightly confined to those applications.