LO YIU LAM v. FAI SHING CONTAINER TRANSPORT CO LTD formerly t/a FREIGHT CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION CO AND ANOTHER

LO YIU LAM v. FAI SHING CONTAINER TRANSPORT CO LTD formerly t/a FREIGHT CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION CO AND ANOTHER

Given the Receipt bearing the 1st respondent's letterhead, the conflicting and non‑conclusive evidence (including false allegations by the 2nd respondent) and the legitimate uncertainty before trial as to who was the employer, it was reasonable for the applicant to pursue the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent must bear the costs of the 1st respondent under a Sanderson order; the 2nd respondent's application was therefore dismissed.

Citation
LO YIU LAM v. FAI SHING CONTAINER TRANSPORT CO LTD formerly t/a FREIGHT CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Lo Yiu Lam; 1st Respondent: Fai Shing Container Transport Company Limited formerly trading as Freight Container Transportation Co.; 2nd Respondent: Tsang Yee Kong (曾意光)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2012
Case Number
DCEC1592/2010
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation (cap. 282) / Post Judgment Costs Variation Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. 2nd respondent ordered to pay costs of this application to both the applicant and the 1st respondent; applicant's costs of the application to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Employees' Compensation, Costs Orders, Sanderson Order, Bullock Order, Variation of Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Costs and Litigation Funding Civil Procedure Employees' Compensation Costs Orders Sanderson Order Bullock Order Variation of Costs Order

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

Parties

Lo Yiu Lam

Applicant

Fai Shing Container Transport Company Limited formerly trading as Freight Container Transportation Co.

1st Respondent

Tsang Yee Kong (曾意光)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation (cap. 282) / Post Judgment Costs Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd respondent should be ordered to pay the 1st respondent's costs under a Sanderson or Bullock order
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for the applicant to pursue the 1st respondent given the Receipt bearing the 1st respondent's letterhead and the state of evidence
  3. 3 Whether in‑fighting between co‑defendants is required to justify a Sanderson or Bullock order

Ratio Decidendi

Given the Receipt bearing the 1st respondent's letterhead, the conflicting and non‑conclusive evidence (including false allegations by the 2nd respondent) and the legitimate uncertainty before trial as to who was the employer, it was reasonable for the applicant to pursue the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent must bear the costs of the 1st respondent under a Sanderson order; the 2nd respondent's application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. 2nd respondent ordered to pay costs of this application to both the applicant and the 1st respondent; applicant's costs of the application to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • Application by 2nd respondent dismissed
  • 2nd respondent to pay forthwith to the applicant costs of the application with certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at HK$32,000.00