LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

The application was dismissed because the court found the plaintiff's overall claim was not a gross or wilful exaggeration such that it lacked a reasonable prospect of recovery in the District Court except for specific items; Rainbow Choice had the opportunity to protect its costs position by sanctioned offers but did not; there was no basis to transfer the IO's District Court scale costs to the plaintiff or to order reduction to Small Claims scale.

Citation
LEGENT CERAMIC LTD v. RAINBOW CHOICE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Legent Ceramic Limited; 1st Defendant: Rainbow Choice Investment Limited; 2nd Defendant/third Party: The Incorporated Owners of Hang Tat Mansion
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Case Number
DCCJ2434/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (property Damage) / Judgment Entered; Post Trial Application to Vary Costs Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; nisi costs order made absolute; original judgment and costs orders upheld
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Calderbank Offers, Sanctioned Payment, Small Claims Jurisdiction, Third Party Proceedings, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Torts Costs Property Damage Court Jurisdiction Costs Orders Calderbank Offers Sanctioned Payment +3 more

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 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legent Ceramic Limited

Plaintiff

Rainbow Choice Investment Limited

1st Defendant

The Incorporated Owners of Hang Tat Mansion

2nd Defendant/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (property Damage) / Judgment Entered; Post Trial Application to Vary Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the nisi costs order should be varied
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim was so exaggerated that it should have been brought in the Small Claims Tribunal
  3. 3 Whether Calderbank/offers or sanctioned payments protected the defendant's costs position

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the court found the plaintiff's overall claim was not a gross or wilful exaggeration such that it lacked a reasonable prospect of recovery in the District Court except for specific items; Rainbow Choice had the opportunity to protect its costs position by sanctioned offers but did not; there was no basis to transfer the IO's District Court scale costs to the plaintiff or to order reduction to Small Claims scale.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; nisi costs order made absolute; original judgment and costs orders upheld

Orders

  • Judgment for Legent Ceramic Limited against Rainbow Choice Investment Limited in the sum of HK$8,068 together with interest
  • Legent Ceramic Limited's claim against The Incorporated Owners of Hang Tat Mansion dismissed