MOHAMMED SHAKEEL v. WONG KIN YU AND OTHERS

MOHAMMED SHAKEEL v. WONG KIN YU AND OTHERS

The plaintiff's application was misconceived; the 3rd defendant is, in principle, entitled to costs of and incidental to the proceedings which may include costs incurred prior to the joinder order, and any disputes over specific pre-joinder items are for the Taxing Master to decide rather than for the court to pre-emptively limit recovery to a specified date.

Citation
MOHAMMED SHAKEEL v. WONG KIN YU AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Mohammed Shakeel; 1st Defendant: Wong Kin Yu; 2nd Defendant: Kut Cheong Garment Factory Limited; 3rd Defendant: Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2015
Case Number
DCPI2441/2011
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Costs Variation Application (decision Dated 5 November 2015)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to vary costs order nisi dismissed in part; costs order nisi varied as per paragraph 1(b) and made absolute.
Legal Topics
Joinder, Costs Order Nisi, Taxation of Costs, Legal Aid Regulations, Procedural Rights of Substituted Parties
Source Language
EN
Civil Personal Injury Costs and Taxation Employment Compensation Joinder Costs Order Nisi Taxation of Costs Legal Aid Regulations +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Shakeel

Plaintiff

Wong Kin Yu

1st Defendant

Kut Cheong Garment Factory Limited

2nd Defendant

Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Costs Variation Application (decision Dated 5 November 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd defendant is entitled to recover costs incurred prior to its formal joinder
  2. 2 Whether costs recoverable by the 3rd defendant should be limited to a specified date (the date of affirmation for joinder)
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the event under Order 62 rule 3 and the scope of the Taxing Master's role

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application was misconceived; the 3rd defendant is, in principle, entitled to costs of and incidental to the proceedings which may include costs incurred prior to the joinder order, and any disputes over specific pre-joinder items are for the Taxing Master to decide rather than for the court to pre-emptively limit recovery to a specified date.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to vary costs order nisi dismissed in part; costs order nisi varied as per paragraph 1(b) and made absolute.

Orders

  • Order in terms of paragraph 1(b) of the plaintiff's summons dated 10 September 2015; costs order nisi made on 27 August 2015 be varied to the extent of paragraph 1(b).
  • Paragraph 1(a) of the plaintiff's summons be dismissed.