ANDREW WILLIAM MAXWELL v. KELISTON MARINE (FAR EAST) LTD (now in liquidation) AND ANOTHER

ANDREW WILLIAM MAXWELL v. KELISTON MARINE (FAR EAST) LTD (now in liquidation) AND ANOTHER

The court exercised its wide discretion on costs and held that payments made into a related employees compensation proceeding may be taken into account when assessing costs in the common law action where it is clear the payments were intended as a global settlement; however Ord.62 r.5 applies primarily to payments...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ANDREW WILLIAM MAXWELL v. KELISTON MARINE (FAR EAST) LTD (now in liquidation) AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Andrew William Maxwell; 1st Defendant (in Liquidation): Keliston Marine (Far East) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Paul Y-Seli Joint Venture
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 April 2012
Case Number
HCPI945/2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Common Law and Employees Compensation / Post Trial Costs Application Following Judgment and Costs Hearing
Outcome
Costs order varied: plaintiff awarded costs up to 4 April 2006; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs thereafter
Legal Topics
Payment Into Court, Costs Follow the Event and Discretionary Departure, Employees Compensation Ordinance Set Off, Without Prejudice/calderbank Offers, Civil Justice Reform Impact on Costs
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Employment Compensation Costs Law Payment Into Court Costs Follow the Event and Discretionary Departure Employees Compensation Ordinance Set Off Without Prejudice/calderbank Offers +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew William Maxwell

Plaintiff

Keliston Marine (Far East) Limited

1st Defendant (in Liquidation)

Paul Y-Seli Joint Venture

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Common Law and Employees Compensation / Post Trial Costs Application Following Judgment and Costs Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments into court made in separate employees compensation proceedings can be taken into account when awarding costs in related common law proceedings
  2. 2 Whether defendant entitled to costs from date of payment-in where combined payments exceed judgment
  3. 3 Whether notice of payment-in was defective and misleading for omission of set-off

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its wide discretion on costs and held that payments made into a related employees compensation proceeding may be taken into account when assessing costs in the common law action where it is clear the payments were intended as a global settlement; however Ord.62 r.5 applies primarily to payments in the proceedings before the court and a High Court payment that exceeded the High Court judgment would not automatically make the defendants successful in those proceedings. Given the without prejudice communications and the plaintiff's refusal to accept the combined payments which were plainly intended to settle both claims, the judge ordered costs to follow the event only up...

Court Disposition

Costs order varied: plaintiff awarded costs up to 4 April 2006; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs thereafter

Orders

  • Defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the action up to 4 April 2006, to be taxed on the District Court Scale if not agreed
  • The plaintiff to pay to the defendants the costs of the action incurred after 4 April 2006, including the costs of the hearing on 21 March 2012, to be taxed on the High Court Scale if not agreed