L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS

The judge found the plaintiff's claims to be completely unmeritorious but not brought maliciously or frivolously, so s73B(3)(a) did not justify a costs order; however there were special circumstances in respect of the summons for discovery because of the plaintiff's dilatory and obstructive interlocutory conduct, and accordingly the defendants were entitled to the reserved costs of the summons for discovery (to be taxed if not agreed), but not to costs of the whole proceedings.

Citation
L v. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: L; 1st Defendant: Equal Opportunities Commission; 2nd Defendant: Chan Yick Man Michael; 3rd Defendant: Ho Choi Wai Yee Angela
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 June 2003
Case Number
DCEO6/1999
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Costs Hearing Post Judgment
Outcome
Defendants awarded reserved costs of the summons for discovery; no costs awarded for remainder of proceedings
Legal Topics
Costs, Sex Discrimination Ordinance, Discovery, Vexatious Litigation
Source Language
EN
Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Employment Law Costs Sex Discrimination Ordinance Discovery Vexatious Litigation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Plaintiff

Equal Opportunities Commission

1st Defendant

Chan Yick Man Michael

2nd Defendant

Ho Choi Wai Yee Angela

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action (sex Discrimination) / Costs Hearing Post Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs could be awarded under s73B(3)(a) for malicious or frivolous proceedings
  2. 2 Whether 'special circumstances' under s73B(3)(b) existed to justify an award of costs against the plaintiff or other parties
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's interlocutory conduct (delay, non-compliance with discovery orders, obstructive behaviour) justified an award of costs limited to reserved interlocutory summonses

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the plaintiff's claims to be completely unmeritorious but not brought maliciously or frivolously, so s73B(3)(a) did not justify a costs order; however there were special circumstances in respect of the summons for discovery because of the plaintiff's dilatory and obstructive interlocutory conduct, and accordingly the defendants were entitled to the reserved costs of the summons for discovery (to be taxed if not agreed), but not to costs of the whole proceedings.

Court Disposition

Defendants awarded reserved costs of the summons for discovery; no costs awarded for remainder of proceedings

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay the defendants the reserved costs of the summons for discovery, to be taxed if not agreed.