RUKHSAR BEGUM v. NATIVE ENGLISH CENTER LTD t/a THE GREEN LOUNGE

RUKHSAR BEGUM v. NATIVE ENGLISH CENTER LTD t/a THE GREEN LOUNGE

The court allowed the application to vary the split costs orders and set aside the 50% split for the duplicated costs items because the split would likely cause substantial and unfair diminution of the aided applicant's damages through common fund deductions under the Legal Aid and Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinances; the variation is justified provided express safeguards prevent duplication of recovery against the employer.

Citation
RUKHSAR BEGUM v. NATIVE ENGLISH CENTER LTD t/a THE GREEN LOUNGE
Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff: Rukhsar Begum; Respondent / Defendant: Native English Center Limited trading as The Green Lounge
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 July 2017
Case Number
DCPI2243/2015
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Case No 867 of 2015 and Personal Injuries Action No 2243 of 2015 / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi; Decision on Variation (judgment Handed Down)
Outcome
Application allowed in part; split costs orders varied and costs order made absolute in favour of applicant/plaintiff with specific exceptions; costs of summons awarded to applicant and taxed under Legal Aid Regulations
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Variation of Costs Orders, Common Fund Charges, Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance Anomaly
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Legal Aid Costs Orders Variation of Costs Orders Common Fund Charges Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance Anomaly

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rukhsar Begum

Applicant / Plaintiff

Native English Center Limited trading as The Green Lounge

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Case No 867 of 2015 and Personal Injuries Action No 2243 of 2015 / Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi; Decision on Variation (judgment Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 50% split costs orders for duplicated items between the EC and PI actions should be varied or set aside
  2. 2 Whether the split costs orders would unfairly reduce the applicant's net damages by enabling the Director of Legal Aid to deduct common fund costs under the Legal Aid Ordinance in the event of payment from the Fund Board
  3. 3 Whether safeguards can be ordered to prevent duplication of recovery by the employer if split is set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the application to vary the split costs orders and set aside the 50% split for the duplicated costs items because the split would likely cause substantial and unfair diminution of the aided applicant's damages through common fund deductions under the Legal Aid and Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinances; the variation is justified provided express safeguards prevent duplication of recovery against the employer.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; split costs orders varied and costs order made absolute in favour of applicant/plaintiff with specific exceptions; costs of summons awarded to applicant and taxed under Legal Aid Regulations

Orders

  • Split costs orders set aside so duplicated costs are not to be split 50/50 between EC and PI actions
  • There be a costs order absolute that the defendant do pay the plaintiff the costs of these proceedings, with the following exceptions