梁滿祥 對 李久元及另二人

梁滿祥 對 李久元及另二人

The Tribunal erred in law and in fact by penalising the successful claimant for not accepting an alleged repair/settlement when there was no evidence of such an effective offer or payment and when the Tribunal had rejected the defendant's factual claim; the costs orders were therefore set aside and the appropriate course was to remit the costs issue to the Tribunal for rehearing under s29(1)(c).

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2069
Parties
Appellant (claimant): 梁滿祥; First Defendant: 李久元; Second Defendant: 中國海外物業服務有限公司; Third Defendant: 元華工程有限公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 August 2019
Case Number
HCSA34/2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (hearing 4 June 2019; Judgment 27 August 2019)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original costs orders set aside; costs issue remitted to Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing; third defendant ordered to pay appellant's costs of this appeal.
Legal Topics
Costs Discretion Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Settlement Offers and Mitigation, Remittal of Issues Under S29, Allocation of Costs on Partial Success
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Costs Tort Property Damage Tribunal Appeals Costs Discretion Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance Settlement Offers and Mitigation Remittal of Issues Under S29 Allocation of Costs on Partial Success

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

梁滿祥

Appellant (claimant)

李久元

First Defendant

中國海外物業服務有限公司

Second Defendant

元華工程有限公司

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal (hearing 4 June 2019; Judgment 27 August 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Small Claims Tribunal wrongly exercised its discretion under s24 to order costs against a successful claimant for refusing an alleged repair/settlement offer
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence of a bona fide settlement/repair offer that would make the litigation avoidable
  3. 3 Whether the Court should remit the costs issue back to the Tribunal under s29(1)(c) rather than decide costs on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law and in fact by penalising the successful claimant for not accepting an alleged repair/settlement when there was no evidence of such an effective offer or payment and when the Tribunal had rejected the defendant's factual claim; the costs orders were therefore set aside and the appropriate course was to remit the costs issue to the Tribunal for rehearing under s29(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original costs orders set aside; costs issue remitted to Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing; third defendant ordered to pay appellant's costs of this appeal.

Orders

  • Original Small Claims Tribunal costs orders dated 28 February 2018 and 27 July 2018 are revoked
  • Costs issue between appellant and third defendant in the original proceeding is remitted to the Small Claims Tribunal for rehearing and determination on a date to be fixed