TO KA WONG v. WORLD GOLD INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

TO KA WONG v. WORLD GOLD INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Although Wo Chun Wah establishes that the default starting point for costs involving the Board is generally no order where the Board properly performs its non-adversarial filtering role, the court found on the facts that the Board acted unreasonably by making an insubstantial settlement offer despite expert agreement on injury severity and favourable counter-offers from the plaintiff; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs from the date of intervention (11 April 2017) to be taxed party and party with a certificate for counsel, and taxed the plaintiff's own costs under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 523
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (intervener): Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Case Number
DCPI1068/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Costs Application Following Assessment of Damages and Judgment
Outcome
Costs order made against the 2nd defendant: 2nd defendant to pay plaintiff's costs from date of intervention; plaintiff's own costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations
Legal Topics
Costs, Intervention, Settlement Offers, Judicial Discretion, Assessment of Damages, Legal Aid
Source Language
EN
Civil Personal Injury Administrative/statutory Fund Intervention Costs Law Costs Intervention Settlement Offers Judicial Discretion +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

2nd Defendant (intervener)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Costs Application Following Assessment of Damages and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board (2nd defendant) should be ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs from date of intervention
  2. 2 Appropriate starting point for costs where the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board intervenes
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted reasonably in performing its filtering/scrutinising role and pursuing settlement

Ratio Decidendi

Although Wo Chun Wah establishes that the default starting point for costs involving the Board is generally no order where the Board properly performs its non-adversarial filtering role, the court found on the facts that the Board acted unreasonably by making an insubstantial settlement offer despite expert agreement on injury severity and favourable counter-offers from the plaintiff; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs from the date of intervention (11 April 2017) to be taxed party and party with a certificate for counsel, and taxed the plaintiff's own costs under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Court Disposition

Costs order made against the 2nd defendant: 2nd defendant to pay plaintiff's costs from date of intervention; plaintiff's own costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations

Orders

  • The costs of the action be to the plaintiff with the 2nd defendant paying the plaintiff's costs from the date of intervention on 11 April 2017 (including all costs reserved) to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
  • The plaintiff's own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.