KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND OTHERS

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND OTHERS

Order 22 r.18(4) applied because the sanctioned payment was made by one respondent only and the defendants were not sued in the alternative or on several liabilities; consequently the court had unfettered discretion on costs. The applicant and her former legal-aid solicitors acted unreasonably in suing the wrong party given the available evidence and the failure to investigate, so costs consequences were adjusted: the 3rd respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to the first directions hearing; the applicant was ordered to pay the Board's remaining costs for the specified period; no order was made for the 1st respondent; and a proposed wasted costs hearing was directed...

Citation
[2019] HKDC 1077
Parties
Applicant: Kaur Paramjit; 1st Respondent: Li On Na trading as San Cheung Fast Food; 2nd Respondent: Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board; 3rd Respondent: He Xiao Ying trading as San Cheung Fast Food
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2019
Case Number
DCEC1479/2012
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Proceedings / Interlocutory Summons Hearing for Payment Out of Sanctioned Payment and Costs (post Default Judgment Setting Aside and Discontinuance Application)
Outcome
Summons granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Payment, Costs Liability, Discontinuance, Wasted Costs Order, Business Registration
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Sanctioned Payment Costs Liability Discontinuance Wasted Costs Order Business Registration

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kaur Paramjit

Applicant

Li On Na trading as San Cheung Fast Food

1st Respondent

Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

2nd Respondent

He Xiao Ying trading as San Cheung Fast Food

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Proceedings / Interlocutory Summons Hearing for Payment Out of Sanctioned Payment and Costs (post Default Judgment Setting Aside and Discontinuance Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Order 22 r.20 or r.18(4) governs costs consequences of acceptance of a sanctioned payment when only one defendant pays
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd respondent or applicant should bear applicant's costs and to what date
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent (former owner) is entitled to costs and whether those costs should be borne by the 3rd respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Order 22 r.18(4) applied because the sanctioned payment was made by one respondent only and the defendants were not sued in the alternative or on several liabilities; consequently the court had unfettered discretion on costs. The applicant and her former legal-aid solicitors acted unreasonably in suing the wrong party given the available evidence and the failure to investigate, so costs consequences were adjusted: the 3rd respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs only up to the first directions hearing; the applicant was ordered to pay the Board's remaining costs for the specified period; no order was made for the 1st respondent; and a proposed wasted costs hearing was directed...

Court Disposition

Summons granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Leave granted for payment out of sanctioned payment of HKD 134624 to the applicant through the Director of Legal Aid
  • 3rd respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the proceedings up to and including the first directions hearing on 15 February 2013, to be taxed if not agreed; thereafter no order as to costs