FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and affirmed the Sanderson order because, given the expert medical evidence and the 2nd defendant's denial of liability, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to join and continue proceedings against the 1st defendant; therefore the 2nd defendant must pay the plaintiff's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FUNG CHUN MAN v. HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: FUNG CHUN MAN; 1st Defendant: HOSPITAL AUTHORITY; 2nd Defendant: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Case Number
HCPI1113/2006
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Entered; Summons to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)
Outcome
Application to vary costs order refused; Sanderson order maintained; judgment for plaintiff against 2nd defendant previously entered affirmed for purposes of costs.
Legal Topics
Sanderson Order, Bullock Order, Costs Allocation, Discontinuance, Expert Evidence
Source Language
en
Tort Medical Negligence Civil Procedure Costs Sanderson Order Bullock Order Costs Allocation Discontinuance Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FUNG CHUN MAN

Plaintiff

HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

1st Defendant

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Entered; Summons to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed against the 1st defendant such that a Sanderson order is appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied so that the plaintiff pays the costs of the 1st defendant
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover costs of this application from the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and affirmed the Sanderson order because, given the expert medical evidence and the 2nd defendant's denial of liability, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to join and continue proceedings against the 1st defendant; therefore the 2nd defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs and the costs of the 1st defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Application to vary costs order refused; Sanderson order maintained; judgment for plaintiff against 2nd defendant previously entered affirmed for purposes of costs.

Orders

  • Judgment previously entered on 11 November 2011 in favour of the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant in the sum of HK$1,381,694 and interest is noted.
  • Costs order nisi that the 2nd defendant pays the costs of the action of the plaintiff and the costs of the 1st defendant, to be taxed if not agreed (Sanderson order) is affirmed and the application to vary it is refused.