FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's exercise of discretion in making a Sanderson order was not demonstrably flawed; there was a proper basis to find it reasonable for the plaintiff to institute and continue proceedings against the 1st defendant given the communality of interest and the 2nd defendant's conduct, so the costs order nisi was confirmed and the summons dismissed.

Citation
FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Fung Chun Man; 1st Defendant: Hospital Authority; 2nd Defendant/applicant: Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Secretary for Food and Health
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 August 2012
Case Number
HCMP850/2012
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Order Arising From HCPI 1113/2006 / Summons for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution Dated 30 April 2012; Determination on 13 August 2012
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed; no stay of execution granted; application declared totally without merit
Legal Topics
Sanderson Order, Costs Order Nisi, Leave to Appeal S.14(3)(e) High Court Ordinance, Stay of Execution, Assessment of Damages, Reasonableness of Pursuing Multiple Defendants, Novus Actus
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort Negligence Health Law Costs Law Sanderson Order Costs Order Nisi Leave to Appeal S.14(3)(e) High Court Ordinance Stay of Execution +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fung Chun Man

Plaintiff/respondent

Hospital Authority

1st Defendant

Secretary for Justice for and on behalf of Secretary for Food and Health

2nd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application for Leave to Appeal Costs Order Arising From HCPI 1113/2006 / Summons for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Execution Dated 30 April 2012; Determination on 13 August 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s.14(3)(e) High Court Ordinance in respect of discretionary costs
  2. 2 Whether a Sanderson order requiring the 2nd defendant to pay the 1st defendant's costs was legally justified
  3. 3 Whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to institute and continue proceedings against the 1st defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's exercise of discretion in making a Sanderson order was not demonstrably flawed; there was a proper basis to find it reasonable for the plaintiff to institute and continue proceedings against the 1st defendant given the communality of interest and the 2nd defendant's conduct, so the costs order nisi was confirmed and the summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed; no stay of execution granted; application declared totally without merit

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing pursuant to RHC O.59 r.2A(8)