LU HUNG LOK v. LEE SIU KEE and Another

LU HUNG LOK v. LEE SIU KEE and Another

The judge exercised the discretionary power to order that the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the Master be costs in the cause because fairness required that the party who ultimately prevailed on the substantive issue of liability for the rear damage should not be penalized by the usual costs rule given the narrow and contested nature of the issues and the appellants' marginal but arguable case.

Citation
LU HUNG LOK v. LEE SIU KEE and Another
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Lu Hung Lok; 1st Defendant/1st Appellant: Lee Siu Kee; 2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant: Wilson Parking (Hong Kong) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 1995
Case Number
HCA1208/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Hearing on Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the Master ordered to be costs in the cause; plaintiff retains Master's judgment and costs for frontal damage.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Costs in the Cause, Order 14 Challenge, Liability for Damage (frontal and Rear), Discretion on Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Tort Appeal Costs Orders Costs in the Cause Order 14 Challenge Liability for Damage (frontal and Rear) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lu Hung Lok

Plaintiff/respondent

Lee Siu Kee

1st Defendant/1st Appellant

Wilson Parking (Hong Kong) Limited

2nd Defendant/2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Costs Hearing on Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants should be awarded costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the Master
  2. 2 Whether the appeal raised the whole of the Master's judgment under Order 14 or only rear damage
  3. 3 Proper exercise of the court's discretion to depart from the normal rule that a successful appellant gets costs

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised the discretionary power to order that the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the Master be costs in the cause because fairness required that the party who ultimately prevailed on the substantive issue of liability for the rear damage should not be penalized by the usual costs rule given the narrow and contested nature of the issues and the appellants' marginal but arguable case.

Court Disposition

Costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the Master ordered to be costs in the cause; plaintiff retains Master's judgment and costs for frontal damage.

Orders

  • The costs of the Appeal and of the hearing before the Master shall be costs in the cause.
  • The Plaintiff retains his judgment with the costs given by the Master in respect of the frontal damage.