CHAN YU CHAU v. FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

CHAN YU CHAU v. FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court held the Calderbank offer of 19 April 2002 could not be taken into account because the 1st Defendant could have protected its position by payment into court under the rules; even if admissible the offer did not exceed the plaintiff's recovery as against the 1st Defendant and was conditional and payable by instalments; accordingly the order nisi as to costs was made absolute and costs between the 1st and 2nd Defendants were apportioned 25%/75% while the Intervenor was not made liable for costs.

Citation
CHAN YU CHAU v. FONG ON CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (principal Contractor): 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (estate of Employer): 2nd Defendant; Intervenor: Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 January 2003
Case Number
HCPI753/2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Tort Claim / Costs Ruling Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
1st Defendant's summons dismissed; order nisi dated 4 June 2002 made absolute; costs orders made as detailed
Legal Topics
Calderbank Offer, Payment Into Court, Apportionment of Liability, Costs Orders, Intervention by Statutory Fund
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Tort Insurance Law Employment Compensation Law Costs Law Calderbank Offer Payment Into Court Apportionment of Liability +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant (principal Contractor)

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant (estate of Employer)

Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Tort Claim / Costs Ruling Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Calderbank offer can be taken into account where payment into court was available under O.22
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to its costs after 19 April 2002 based on the Calderbank offer
  3. 3 Proper apportionment of costs between 1st and 2nd Defendants and whether the Intervenor is liable for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the Calderbank offer of 19 April 2002 could not be taken into account because the 1st Defendant could have protected its position by payment into court under the rules; even if admissible the offer did not exceed the plaintiff's recovery as against the 1st Defendant and was conditional and payable by instalments; accordingly the order nisi as to costs was made absolute and costs between the 1st and 2nd Defendants were apportioned 25%/75% while the Intervenor was not made liable for costs.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant's summons dismissed; order nisi dated 4 June 2002 made absolute; costs orders made as detailed

Orders

  • 1st Defendant's summons dismissed
  • Order nisi as to costs of 4 June 2002 made absolute