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

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

The judge found on the evidence that the plaintiff fabricated the alleged 3rd accident and that the proceedings were oppressive; therefore exercised discretion to award costs to the defendant to be taxed on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel; refused enhanced interest because the sanctioned payment was made within 28 days of trial and there was no agreement on costs so O.22 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
DCEC120/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries and Employees Compensation Actions (district Court) / Post Judgment Costs Application; Variation of Costs Order and Application for Enhanced Interest
Outcome
Judgment for Defendant/Respondent in both actions; Plaintiff/Applicant's claims dismissed; costs varied to indemnity; application for enhanced interest refused.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Costs, Enhanced Interest, Sanctioned Payment, Legal Aid, Oppression in Litigation, Fabrication of Evidence
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Employment Law Costs Civil Procedure Workers' Compensation Indemnity Costs Enhanced Interest Sanctioned Payment +3 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Sau Fat

Plaintiff/applicant

F. H. Security Services Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries and Employees Compensation Actions (district Court) / Post Judgment Costs Application; Variation of Costs Order and Application for Enhanced Interest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged 3rd accident occurred
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded
  3. 3 Whether enhanced interest under O.22 r.23 is payable following a sanctioned payment within the 28-day period

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found on the evidence that the plaintiff fabricated the alleged 3rd accident and that the proceedings were oppressive; therefore exercised discretion to award costs to the defendant to be taxed on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel; refused enhanced interest because the sanctioned payment was made within 28 days of trial and there was no agreement on costs so O.22 r.23(4) did not apply.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Defendant/Respondent in both actions; Plaintiff/Applicant's claims dismissed; costs varied to indemnity; application for enhanced interest refused.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for Defendant/Respondent in Personal Injuries Action No. 1471 of 2008 and Employees Compensation Case No. 120 of 2007; claims dismissed.
  • Costs of the personal injuries action and the employees compensation action (including this application) are to be paid by the Plaintiff/Applicant to the Defendant/Respondent, to be taxed on an indemnity basis, with certificate for counsel.