LAM WING SUM MONICA v. TAM KA KIT JOE AND ANOTHER

LAM WING SUM MONICA v. TAM KA KIT JOE AND ANOTHER

The appeal was allowed and the master's order set aside because the master exercised her discretion on a wrong factual basis; the plaintiff's calculations (notably differences in pre-trial and future loss of earnings) gave a reasonable prospect of recovery above HK$1,000,000 at the time the claim was brought,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAM WING SUM MONICA v. TAM KA KIT JOE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lam Wing Sum Monica; 1st Defendant: Tam Ka Kit Joe; 2nd Defendant: Wing Lung Insurance Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2006
Case Number
HCPI933/2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action No.933 of 2005 / Appeal From Master's Costs Order After Settlement
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the master set aside
Legal Topics
Scale of Costs, District Court Jurisdiction, Reasonable Prospect Test, Loss of Earnings, Settlement
Source Language
en
Civil Personal Injury Costs and Procedure Scale of Costs District Court Jurisdiction Reasonable Prospect Test Loss of Earnings Settlement

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Wing Sum Monica

Plaintiff

Tam Ka Kit Joe

1st Defendant

Wing Lung Insurance Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action No.933 of 2005 / Appeal From Master's Costs Order After Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether District Court or High Court scale of costs applies
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of recovering over the District Court jurisdictional limit of HK$1,000,000 at the time the claim was brought
  3. 3 Whether the master exercised her discretion on an incorrect factual basis

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the master's order set aside because the master exercised her discretion on a wrong factual basis; the plaintiff's calculations (notably differences in pre-trial and future loss of earnings) gave a reasonable prospect of recovery above HK$1,000,000 at the time the claim was brought, therefore High Court scale of costs must apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the master set aside

Orders

  • Order of the master set aside and substituted: High Court scale of costs to apply in respect of the costs of the action