LEE CHIU LAN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

LEE CHIU LAN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

On the evidence the 2nd respondent and Ming An, through their solicitors, repeatedly warned R1 not to make admissions, provided and filed R2's answers before R1 and thereby objectively influenced and compelled R1 to defend the ECC to preserve indemnity rights; that conduct constituted a special or unusual feature amounting to an affront to the court and justified awarding indemnity costs to R1 for defending the eight ECCs and for opposing the s 24 indemnity application, with certificate for counsel; costs of the present application to be paid by R2 to be taxed if not agreed on a party-and-party basis (order nisi).

Citation
LEE CHIU LAN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (dcec 153 154/2004): Li Yuen Yau; Applicant (dcec 154/2004): Lee Chiu Lan; Applicant (lawful Attorney for Multiple Applicants in DCEC 241 246/2004): Ting Kam Yuen; 1st Respondent: Viatech Engineering Limited; 2nd Respondent: Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 June 2013
Case Number
DCEC154/2004
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Claims Under the Employees Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282 / Chambers Hearing on Taxation of Costs Following Settlement of Related High Court Action
Outcome
Awarded indemnity costs to the 1st respondent (Viatech) against the 2nd respondent (Zen Pacific/Ming An) for defending the eight ECCs and for opposing the s 24 indemnity application, with certificate for counsel; ordered costs of the present application to be paid by the 2nd respondent, to be taxed if not agreed, on...
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation, Indemnity Costs, Taxation of Costs, Principal Contractor Liability, Double Insurance Clause
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs and Taxation Employees' Compensation Indemnity Costs Taxation of Costs Principal Contractor Liability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Yuen Yau

Applicant (dcec 153 154/2004)

Lee Chiu Lan

Applicant (dcec 154/2004)

Ting Kam Yuen

Applicant (lawful Attorney for Multiple Applicants in DCEC 241 246/2004)

Viatech Engineering Limited

1st Respondent

Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Claims Under the Employees Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282 / Chambers Hearing on Taxation of Costs Following Settlement of Related High Court Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the 2nd respondent for costs incurred by the 1st respondent in defending eight ECCs and opposing an s 24 indemnity application
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the 2nd respondent and its insurer/representatives amounted to special or unusual features justifying indemnity costs
  3. 3 Whether R1 was compelled by R2/Ming An's pre-trial conduct and letters to defend the ECC to preserve indemnity rights

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the 2nd respondent and Ming An, through their solicitors, repeatedly warned R1 not to make admissions, provided and filed R2's answers before R1 and thereby objectively influenced and compelled R1 to defend the ECC to preserve indemnity rights; that conduct constituted a special or unusual feature amounting to an affront to the court and justified awarding indemnity costs to R1 for defending the eight ECCs and for opposing the s 24 indemnity application, with certificate for counsel; costs of the present application to be paid by R2 to be taxed if not agreed on a party-and-party basis (order nisi).

Court Disposition

Awarded indemnity costs to the 1st respondent (Viatech) against the 2nd respondent (Zen Pacific/Ming An) for defending the eight ECCs and for opposing the s 24 indemnity application, with certificate for counsel; ordered costs of the present application to be paid by the 2nd respondent, to be taxed if not agreed, on...

Orders

  • 1. Indemnity costs awarded to Viatech Engineering Limited for (i) defending DCEC 153-154 and DCEC 241-246 of 2004 and (ii) opposing the s 24 indemnity application (including costs of the summonses filed on 6 and 25 June 2007), with certificate for counsel.
  • 2. Order nisi that the costs of Viatech Engineering Limited in the present taxation application be paid by Zen Pacific Civil Contractors Limited, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel, on party-and-party basis.