Sami\'an Sutinah v. Katrina Leung Wai Kuen and Another

Sami\'an Sutinah v. Katrina Leung Wai Kuen and Another

Because the 1st defendant had been criminally convicted after trial for the assaults on the plaintiff, the defence in the civil action disclosed no reasonable defence and was struck out under Order 18 rule 19; judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed and costs ordered.

Citation
Sami\'an Sutinah v. Katrina Leung Wai Kuen and Another
Parties
Plaintiff: Sami an Sutinah; 1st Defendant: Katrina Leung Wai-kuen; 2nd Defendant: QBE Hongkong and Shanghai Insurance Limited (formerly known as Hongkong & Shanghai Insurance Company Limited)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 May 2002
Case Number
DCPI23/2002
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Ruling (strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19)
Outcome
Defence of the 1st defendant struck out; judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages to be assessed; plaintiff awarded costs to be taxed and order for Legal Aid taxation.
Legal Topics
Assault, Use of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Costs, Assessment of Damages, Case Management Directions, Evidence (medical Reports, Expert Limitation)
Source Language
EN
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Criminal Law Assault Use of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 Costs Assessment of Damages +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 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sami an Sutinah

Plaintiff

Katrina Leung Wai-kuen

1st Defendant

QBE Hongkong and Shanghai Insurance Limited (formerly known as Hongkong & Shanghai Insurance Company Limited)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Ruling (strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant's defence discloses a reasonable defence in light of prior criminal convictions for assault
  2. 2 Whether and to what extent the plaintiff can rely on the defendant's criminal convictions in the civil damages claim
  3. 3 What case management and evidential directions are appropriate for assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

Because the 1st defendant had been criminally convicted after trial for the assaults on the plaintiff, the defence in the civil action disclosed no reasonable defence and was struck out under Order 18 rule 19; judgment was entered for the plaintiff with damages to be assessed and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Defence of the 1st defendant struck out; judgment entered for the plaintiff; damages to be assessed; plaintiff awarded costs to be taxed and order for Legal Aid taxation.

Orders

  • Defences of the 1st defendant struck out.
  • Judgment for the plaintiff; damages to be assessed.