LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD

The court found on the evidence that the alleged third accident did not occur and the plaintiff fabricated injuries; accordingly the plaintiff's claims were unmeritorious and oppressive and indemnity costs were justified; however enhanced interest under O.22 r.23 was not awarded because the sanctioned payment was made within the period in which acceptance without leave was constrained and there was no agreement on costs, so r.23(4) did not apply.

Citation
LEE SAU FAT v. F. H. SECURITY SERVICES CO LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Lee Sau Fat; Defendant/respondent: F. H. Security Services Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Case Number
DCPI1471/2008
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action; Employees' Compensation / Post Judgment Costs Variation and Taxation Applications
Outcome
Judgment for Defendant/Respondent in both the personal injuries action and the employees' compensation action; Plaintiff/Applicant's claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Sanctioned Payment, Enhanced Interest, Fabricated Claims, Costs Taxation
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Employment Law Costs Employees' Compensation Indemnity Costs Sanctioned Payment Enhanced Interest Fabricated Claims +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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Sau Fat

Plaintiff/applicant

F. H. Security Services Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action; Employees' Compensation / Post Judgment Costs Variation and Taxation Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged 17 March 2006 (third) accident occurred
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff fabricated or exaggerated injuries
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the alleged third accident did not occur and the plaintiff fabricated injuries; accordingly the plaintiff's claims were unmeritorious and oppressive and indemnity costs were justified; however enhanced interest under O.22 r.23 was not awarded because the sanctioned payment was made within the period in which acceptance without leave was constrained and there was no agreement on costs, so r.23(4) did not apply.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Defendant/Respondent in both the personal injuries action and the employees' compensation action; Plaintiff/Applicant's claims dismissed

Orders

  • Costs to be paid by the Plaintiff/Applicant to the Defendant/Respondent, to be taxed on an indemnity basis, with certificate for counsel (including costs of this application)
  • Plaintiff/Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations