ALESSANDRO GUARINO v. QUASAR ENGINEERING LTD

ALESSANDRO GUARINO v. QUASAR ENGINEERING LTD

Section 73C of the District Court Ordinance applies to interlocutory applications in actions commenced under the DDO; where the claimant's amendment application was consented to and not frivolous or malicious, no special grounds existed to displace the default rule and no costs order should be made.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 121
Parties
Claimant: Alessandro Guarino; Respondent: Quasar Engineering Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Case Number
DCEO6/2023
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Ordinance Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend and Costs Hearing
Outcome
Consent to amendment granted; no order as to costs so each party to bear their own costs.
Legal Topics
Section 73 C District Court Ordinance, Interlocutory Applications, Costs Orders, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Disability Discrimination Civil Procedure Costs Section 73 C District Court Ordinance Interlocutory Applications Costs Orders Amendment of Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alessandro Guarino

Claimant

Quasar Engineering Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Ordinance Claim / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Amend and Costs Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 73C of the District Court Ordinance applies to interlocutory applications in claims under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether costs should be ordered against the claimant despite consent to the amendment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's application was frivolous or malicious such as to engage an exception under section 73C

Ratio Decidendi

Section 73C of the District Court Ordinance applies to interlocutory applications in actions commenced under the DDO; where the claimant's amendment application was consented to and not frivolous or malicious, no special grounds existed to displace the default rule and no costs order should be made.

Court Disposition

Consent to amendment granted; no order as to costs so each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Consent order allowing claimant to file and serve the draft re-re-amended notice of claim
  • No order as to costs in relation to the claimant's summons; each party to bear their own costs