LAU PO LING v. JOSEF GARTNER & CO. (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

LAU PO LING v. JOSEF GARTNER & CO. (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

No special circumstances existed: insurer and solicitors did not act improperly and there was no evidence an earlier JME date was available; claimant had sufficient material (Form 5, Form 7 and medical records) to assess acceptance risk and unreasonably waited for a potentially more favourable report; accordingly claimant ordered to pay respondents' costs from 11 November 2014.

Citation
LAU PO LING v. JOSEF GARTNER & CO. (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2015
Case Number
DCEC976/2014
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Claim Under Employees Compensation Ordinance / Application for Leave to Accept Sanctioned Payment Out of Time and Determination of Costs Liability After Prescribed Deadline
Outcome
Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs from 11 November 2014; leave to accept payment out of time had been granted earlier by consent; costs of application subject to taxation and legal aid regulations.
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Payment, Payment Into Court, Acceptance Deadline, Costs Orders, Part 36 Analogue
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Employment Law Workers Compensation Costs Law Sanctioned Payment Payment Into Court Acceptance Deadline Costs Orders +1 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Claim Under Employees Compensation Ordinance / Application for Leave to Accept Sanctioned Payment Out of Time and Determination of Costs Liability After Prescribed Deadline

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's late acceptance of a sanctioned payment after the 28-day prescribed period attracts an order that claimant pay respondent's costs from expiry of the period
  2. 2 Whether special circumstances exist to justify departure from the usual costs order
  3. 3 Whether insurer (Kono) and respondents' solicitors (Munros) acted improperly thereby creating special circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

No special circumstances existed: insurer and solicitors did not act improperly and there was no evidence an earlier JME date was available; claimant had sufficient material (Form 5, Form 7 and medical records) to assess acceptance risk and unreasonably waited for a potentially more favourable report; accordingly claimant ordered to pay respondents' costs from 11 November 2014.

Court Disposition

Applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs from 11 November 2014; leave to accept payment out of time had been granted earlier by consent; costs of application subject to taxation and legal aid regulations.

Orders

  • As from 11 November 2014, the applicant do pay the respondents' costs of these proceedings (including all costs reserved, if any) such costs are to be taxed if not agreed. The applicant's own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
  • A costs order nisi that applicant do pay the respondents' costs (including all costs reserved) of the Application, which costs are to be taxed if not agreed. The applicant's own costs are likewise to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.