LEE HING KAU HEAVEN 對 TRADE TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LTD及另一人

LEE HING KAU HEAVEN 對 TRADE TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LTD及另一人

The court found no injustice in making the Order 22 r.23 orders. It held that the defendants were entitled to have the provisional costs order replaced by an absolute costs order, that the defendants' costs should be assessed on the indemnity (彌償) basis, that proven disbursements attract enhanced interest and that the appropriate enhanced rate in this case is judgment rate plus 4%, with interest to run from the respective payment dates; the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the application and, if amounts cannot be agreed, the court will assess them.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 1052
Parties
Plaintiff: LEE HING KAU HEAVEN; First Defendant: TRADE TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LIMITED; Second Defendant: OPEN RISE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 July 2025
Case Number
DCPI1888/2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (traffic Accident) / Costs Assessment (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application granted; provisional costs order varied and replaced by absolute costs order in favour of the defendants; costs to be assessed on indemnity basis; enhanced interest awarded at judgment rate plus 4% on proven disbursements from their payment dates; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the application;...
Legal Topics
Conditional Payment / Offer Consequences, Order 22 R.23 Applications, Enhanced Interest on Costs, Disbursements Assessment
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Interest Conditional Payment / Offer Consequences Order 22 R.23 Applications Enhanced Interest on Costs Disbursements Assessment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE HING KAU HEAVEN

Plaintiff

TRADE TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LIMITED

First Defendant

OPEN RISE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (traffic Accident) / Costs Assessment (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisional costs order should be replaced by an absolute costs order under Order 22 r.23
  2. 2 Proper basis of assessment (indemnity vs party–party) for the defendants' costs
  3. 3 Whether enhanced interest should be awarded on costs/disbursements and at what rate

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no injustice in making the Order 22 r.23 orders. It held that the defendants were entitled to have the provisional costs order replaced by an absolute costs order, that the defendants' costs should be assessed on the indemnity (彌償) basis, that proven disbursements attract enhanced interest and that the appropriate enhanced rate in this case is judgment rate plus 4%, with interest to run from the respective payment dates; the plaintiff must pay the defendants' costs of the application and, if amounts cannot be agreed, the court will assess them.

Court Disposition

Application granted; provisional costs order varied and replaced by absolute costs order in favour of the defendants; costs to be assessed on indemnity basis; enhanced interest awarded at judgment rate plus 4% on proven disbursements from their payment dates; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs of the application;...

Orders

  • Provisional costs order in the judgment of 4 December 2024 is varied and replaced by the terms of the defendants' draft order as filed, subject to modification that clause 1(c) is amended to provide for an interest rate equal to the judgment rate plus 4%
  • The defendants' costs in the action shall be assessed on the indemnity (彌償) basis; if parties cannot agree on quantum, the court will assess