LAI KA WAI 對 MEI FAI HONG KONG ENGINEERING LTD 及另一人
The court accepted the parties' agreement and made a consent order that the Applicant pay 70% of the 3rd Respondent's costs (taxed if not agreed); the court ordered no costs between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent because the 1st Respondent took no active part and incurred no costs; the Applicant's own costs...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 1382
- Parties
- Applicant: LAI KA WAI; 1st Respondent: MEI FAI HONG KONG ENGINEERING LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: AIA COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Respondent: EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2021
- Case Number
- CACV593/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (employees' Compensation) / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Consent order insofar as agreed between Applicant and 3rd Respondent; no order as to costs between Applicant and 1st Respondent; Applicant's own costs to be assessed under Legal Aid Regulations.
- Legal Topics
- Costs, Appeal, Consent Orders, Legal Aid Regulations
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LAI KA WAI
Applicant
MEI FAI HONG KONG ENGINEERING LIMITED
1st Respondent
AIA COMPANY LIMITED
2nd Respondent
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD
3rd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (employees' Compensation) / Costs Determination Following Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether applicant should pay a portion of 3rd respondent's costs
- 2 Whether there should be an order as to costs between applicant and 1st respondent
- 3 How applicant's own costs should be assessed under Legal Aid Regulations
Ratio Decidendi
The court accepted the parties' agreement and made a consent order that the Applicant pay 70% of the 3rd Respondent's costs (taxed if not agreed); the court ordered no costs between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent because the 1st Respondent took no active part and incurred no costs; the Applicant's own costs are to be assessed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
Court Disposition
Consent order insofar as agreed between Applicant and 3rd Respondent; no order as to costs between Applicant and 1st Respondent; Applicant's own costs to be assessed under Legal Aid Regulations.
Orders
- The Applicant do pay 70% of the 3rd Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed
- No order as to costs between the Applicant and the 1st Respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 593/2020 [2021] HKCA 1382 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事上訴案件2020年第593號 (原本案件編號：區域法院僱員補償案件2017年第162號) __________________ 申請人 LAI KA WAI 及 第一答辯人 MEI FAI HONG KONG ENGINEERING LIMITED 第二答辯人 AIA COMPANY LIMITED (已中止) 第三答辯人 EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ASSISTANCE FUND BOARD __________________ 審理法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長關淑馨 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 高等法院上訴法庭法官區慶祥 訟費判案書日期： 2021年9月20日 訟 費 判 案 書 上訴法庭法官區慶祥頒發上訴法庭訟費判案書： 本庭在2021年7月21日頒下判案書 (「判案書」)，裁定申請人在本上訴中的第一上訴理由得直，但第二上訴理由失敗。 本庭作出指示，各方提交有關訟費處理的書面陳詞，並會在參閱相關陳詞後，對訟費作出書面裁決。見判案書第40段。 依據上述指示，申請人及第三答辯人共同以日期為2021年8月25日的信件通知法庭，他們就本上訴訟費達成以下協議： “1. The Applicant do pay 70% of the 3rd Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed; 2. The Applicant’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.” 基於以上的協議，本庭現頒下以下同意命令： “1. The Applicant do pay 70% of the 3rd Respondent’s costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed; 2. The Applicant’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.” 至於申請人與第一答辯人之間的訟費，申請人的大律師在其日期為2021年8月24日的書面陳詞中，要求作出無訟費命令。她提出的支持理由為： 「 3. 上訴人與第一答辯人之間有關本上訴的訟費，上訴人指出第一答辯人除了於2021年6月25日出席上訴聆訊外，基本上對於本上訴沒有既定立場或採取任何回應，例如書信、書面或口頭陳述等，他本身亦一直沒有律師代表，應沒有訟費發生。 4. 上訴人於本上訴理由一得直而理由二失敗，縱使他得到法律援助，其所需負責的上訴費用將會從法庭判定的僱員補償金額中扣除，他已就本上訴付出沉重的代價。 5. 上訴人建議這是適合的情況並懇請上訴庭就上訴人與第一答辯人之間就本上訴不作任何訟費命令。」 第一答辯人沒有就上述陳詞及建議提交任何陳詞作出回應。 本庭同意及接納申請人的上述陳詞。故此，就著申請人及第一答辯人之間的訟費，作出無訟費命令。此外，本庭亦作出命令，申請人本身之訟費，按法律援助規則作出評定。 (關淑馨) (袁家寧) (區慶祥) 高等法院 高等法院 高等法院 上訴法庭副庭長 上訴法庭法官 上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由法律援助署委派廖廣志律師事務所延聘羅麗萍大律師代表 第一答辯人： 無律師代表 第三答辯人： 由何耀棣律師事務所代表