KWOK SIU YING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LIN CHUN AND ANOTHER

KWOK SIU YING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LIN CHUN AND ANOTHER

Because the plaintiffs' sanctioned offer had been altered by adding terms as to interest and costs it became a new offer; therefore the statutory/procedural mechanism for leave to accept a valid subsisting sanctioned offer out of time (RDC O.22 r.16(2)(b) and (3)) did not apply, and as all parties were equally to blame for the misunderstanding each party must bear its own costs.

Citation
KWOK SIU YING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN LIN CHUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KWOK SIU YING; 2nd Plaintiff: TSUI KING HONG WILLIAM; 1st Defendant: CHAN LIN CHUN; 2nd Defendant: MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2009
Case Number
DCCJ2742/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (costs / Sanctioned Offer Dispute) / Hearing of Summons for Leave to Accept Sanctioned Offer Out of Time (costs Application)
Outcome
2nd Defendant's summons dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Offer, Acceptance Out of Time, Order 22 Rule 16, Costs Allocation
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Settlement/offers Sanctioned Offer Acceptance Out of Time Order 22 Rule 16 Costs Allocation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KWOK SIU YING

1st Plaintiff

TSUI KING HONG WILLIAM

2nd Plaintiff

CHAN LIN CHUN

1st Defendant

MIDLAND REALTY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (costs / Sanctioned Offer Dispute) / Hearing of Summons for Leave to Accept Sanctioned Offer Out of Time (costs Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' sanctioned offer had been altered such that it ceased to be a valid subsisting sanctioned offer
  2. 2 Whether the procedure under RDC O.22 r.16(2)(b) and (3) for leave to accept a sanctioned offer out of time applied
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs for the misconceived summons

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs' sanctioned offer had been altered by adding terms as to interest and costs it became a new offer; therefore the statutory/procedural mechanism for leave to accept a valid subsisting sanctioned offer out of time (RDC O.22 r.16(2)(b) and (3)) did not apply, and as all parties were equally to blame for the misunderstanding each party must bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

2nd Defendant's summons dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Dismiss 2nd Defendant's summons dated 12 October 2009
  • No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs