YIM WAI LING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN CHIK WAH AND ANOTHER

YIM WAI LING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN CHIK WAH AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2); the Sanctioned Offer was not properly constituted to attract Order 22 rule 23 consequences, the court had considered the offer as a settlement (including Calderbank-style effect) and exercised its discretion judicially, and the defendants' conduct in contesting liability justified the costs outcome.

Citation
YIM WAI LING AND ANOTHER v. YUEN CHIK WAH AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Yim Wai Ling; 2nd Plaintiff: Poon Chun Hong; 1st Defendant: Yuen Chik Wah; 2nd Defendant: Kwan Sin Man
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2017
Case Number
DCCJ663/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs Variation/leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order (summons) After Costs Decision
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Offer, Calderbank Offer, Order 22 Costs Regime, Leave to Appeal Under S63 A(2), Small Claims Tribunal Allocation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Appeals Sanctioned Offer Calderbank Offer Order 22 Costs Regime Leave to Appeal Under S63 A(2) Small Claims Tribunal Allocation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yim Wai Ling

1st Plaintiff

Poon Chun Hong

2nd Plaintiff

Yuen Chik Wah

1st Defendant

Kwan Sin Man

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs Variation/leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order (summons) After Costs Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sanctioned Offer was valid to attract costs consequences under Order 22 rule 23
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) District Court Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' offer should be treated as a Calderbank/offer to settle attracting costs credits

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2); the Sanctioned Offer was not properly constituted to attract Order 22 rule 23 consequences, the court had considered the offer as a settlement (including Calderbank-style effect) and exercised its discretion judicially, and the defendants' conduct in contesting liability justified the costs outcome.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the Summons to the plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed on party and party basis with a certificate for counsel (costs order nisi)