CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

The 6 December 2018 letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; accordingly O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be invoked. The court also preferred the respondent's orthopaedic expert and upheld the order that the applicant pay the costs of the joint orthopaedics expert report.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 850
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Chu Chung Man; Respondent/defendant: East Asia Moving Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Case Number
DCPI1654/2016
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation Proceedings and Personal Injuries Action Heard Together / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; applicant ordered to pay costs of the application
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Offer, Settlement Offers, Order 22 R.5, Order 22 R.24, Indemnity Costs, Interest on Judgment, Taxation of Costs, Expert Witness Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Employment Compensation Personal Injury Sanctioned Offer Settlement Offers Order 22 R.5 Order 22 R.24 +4 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chu Chung Man

Applicant/plaintiff

East Asia Moving Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation Proceedings and Personal Injuries Action Heard Together / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 6 December 2018 letter constituted a sanctioned offer under O.22 r.5(7)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs and enhanced interest under O.22 r.24 by reason of the offer
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff must pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the joint orthopaedics expert report

Ratio Decidendi

The 6 December 2018 letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; accordingly O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be invoked. The court also preferred the respondent's orthopaedic expert and upheld the order that the applicant pay the costs of the joint orthopaedics expert report.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; applicant ordered to pay costs of the application

Orders

  • Application to vary the costs order dismissed
  • Costs order nisi made absolute: there shall be no order as to the costs of both sets of proceedings save that Chu Chung Man do pay East Asia Moving Limited its costs of and incidental to the joint orthopaedics expert report; Chu Chung Man's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations