CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

The Offer Letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; consequently O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be imposed. The earlier judgment's preference for the respondent's orthopaedic expert was...

Source-derived case information.

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
DCEC883/2015
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation and Personal Injuries (heard Together) / Post Trial Application to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; applicant to pay respondent costs of and incidental to the joint orthopaedics expert report and costs of this application; applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Offer, Order 22 Rule 5, Order 22 Rule 24, Indemnity Costs, Taxation of Costs, Interest on Judgment, Expert Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Costs Sanctioned Offer Order 22 Rule 5 Order 22 Rule 24 Indemnity Costs +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chu Chung Man

Applicant/plaintiff

East Asia Moving Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation and Personal Injuries (heard Together) / Post Trial Application to Vary Costs Order (decision on Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter of 6 December 2018 constituted a sanctioned offer under O.22 r.5
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to consequences under O.22 r.24 (indemnity costs and enhanced interest)
  3. 3 Whether the costs order nisi should be varied regarding the joint orthopaedics expert report

Ratio Decidendi

The Offer Letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; consequently O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be imposed. The earlier judgment's preference for the respondent's orthopaedic expert was upheld, so the original costs order nisi stands and the application to vary it is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs order nisi made absolute; applicant to pay respondent costs of and incidental to the joint orthopaedics expert report and costs of this application; applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • Application dated 3 June 2020 dismissed
  • Costs order nisi made absolute