GURUNG, RAM PRASAD v. WLS CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

GURUNG, RAM PRASAD v. WLS CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER

Because the respondents failed to pay the agreed settlement sum by the stipulated deadline despite having been given notice that an examination order would be sought and they did not apply to set aside the Order for Examination or otherwise demonstrate that omissions were material to the judge who made the order, the Applicant was justified in obtaining the Order for Examination and is therefore entitled to the costs of and occasioned by that application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
GURUNG, RAM PRASAD v. WLS CONTRACTORS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: GURUNG, RAM PRASAD; 1st Respondent: WLS CONTRACTORS LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: SHIMIZU CORPORATION AND CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LIMITED trading as SHIMIZU-CHINA STATE JOINT VENTURE
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 April 2006
Case Number
DCEC1392/2005
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Costs Application After Settlement and Enforcement Via Order for Examination
Outcome
Order nisi made absolute in 14 days: Respondents ordered to pay costs to Applicant, to be taxed if not agreed.
Legal Topics
Order for Examination, Ex Parte Applications, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Proceedings, Settlement Enforcement, Costs Following Successful Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Enforcement of Judgments Costs Order for Examination Ex Parte Applications Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Proceedings Settlement Enforcement +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GURUNG, RAM PRASAD

Applicant

WLS CONTRACTORS LIMITED

1st Respondent

SHIMIZU CORPORATION AND CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LIMITED trading as SHIMIZU-CHINA STATE JOINT VENTURE

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Costs Application After Settlement and Enforcement Via Order for Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant is entitled to costs of an ex parte Order for Examination obtained after breach of a consent order
  2. 2 Whether the ex parte application was premature or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether failure to disclose alleged communications seeking extension amounted to material non-disclosure warranting setting aside the Order for Examination

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents failed to pay the agreed settlement sum by the stipulated deadline despite having been given notice that an examination order would be sought and they did not apply to set aside the Order for Examination or otherwise demonstrate that omissions were material to the judge who made the order, the Applicant was justified in obtaining the Order for Examination and is therefore entitled to the costs of and occasioned by that application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Order nisi made absolute in 14 days: Respondents ordered to pay costs to Applicant, to be taxed if not agreed.

Orders

  • The Respondents do pay costs of this application to the Applicant, to be taxed, if not agreed; order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days.