CHAN KA KIN v. LAI KAM TONG AND ANOTHER

CHAN KA KIN v. LAI KAM TONG AND ANOTHER

The master's global costs order was neither unreasonable nor legally erroneous; costs of the main action and the joinder application should be to D1 (plaintiff's discontinuance unsupported and plaintiff breached Practice Direction 18.1) while costs of the applications to set aside the default judgment should be to the plaintiff (default judgment was regular and entered due to D1's failure to comply with rules); the appeal is dismissed and costs of the appeal are to be paid by D1 to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed, with D1's own costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Citation
CHAN KA KIN v. LAI KAM TONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Case Number
HCPI698/2007
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Civil Litigation / Appeal From Master's Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Order, Joinder, Default Judgment, Setting Aside, Taxation of Costs, Practice Directions
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Employer Liability Costs Order Joinder Default Judgment Setting Aside +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Civil Litigation / Appeal From Master's Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the master erred in law or made an unreasonable costs order
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs of the action, the joinder application and the setting aside applications
  3. 3 Validity and consequences of the default judgment and compliance with Rules of High Court

Ratio Decidendi

The master's global costs order was neither unreasonable nor legally erroneous; costs of the main action and the joinder application should be to D1 (plaintiff's discontinuance unsupported and plaintiff breached Practice Direction 18.1) while costs of the applications to set aside the default judgment should be to the plaintiff (default judgment was regular and entered due to D1's failure to comply with rules); the appeal is dismissed and costs of the appeal are to be paid by D1 to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed, with D1's own costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the action awarded to 1st Defendant