IRVING MATTHEW WILLIAM AND ANOTHER v. MAN CHUN YEUNG AND ANOTHER
Applying Order 22 r 23 RDC, plaintiffs failed to beat the sanctioned payment of HK$320,000; court disallowed interest on damages and special damages from 7 January 2015 to judgment; defendants liable for interest and plaintiffs' costs up to 6 January 2015; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs from 7 January 2015 to 23 March 2016 on a party-to-party basis (indemnity refused) and interest on those costs awarded at 4.5% p.a.; sums awarded to the minor already ordered paid into court remain so, HK$37,761 plus accrued interest to be kept in court, and the balance of the sanctioned payment after those retentions to be paid out to defendants.
- Citation
- IRVING MATTHEW WILLIAM AND ANOTHER v. MAN CHUN YEUNG AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Irving Matthew William (suing by his father and next friend Irving William Samuel); 2nd Plaintiff: Wong Yui Shan Vanness; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2016
- Case Number
- DCPI2242/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Personal Injuries Action / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (costs Variation Application)
- Outcome
- Order Nisi varied to restrict interest to period up to 6 January 2015, award defendants costs from 7 January 2015 to judgment on party-to-party basis, award interest on those costs at 4.5% p.a., retain specified sums in court and pay balance of sanctioned payment to defendants; plaintiffs to pay costs of summons on...
- Legal Topics
- Sanctioned Payment, Order 22 Rule 23 RDC, Interest on Damages, Costs Orders (party to Party Vs Indemnity), Set Off of Costs, Protection of Minor's Award, Taxation of Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Irving Matthew William (suing by his father and next friend Irving William Samuel)
1st Plaintiff
Wong Yui Shan Vanness
2nd Plaintiff
1st Defendant
1st Defendant
2nd Defendant
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Post Judgment Application to Vary Costs Order Nisi (costs Variation Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether plaintiff failed to obtain judgment better than sanctioned payment and consequences under Order 22 r 23 RDC
- 2 Whether to disallow interest on damages after the latest date the sanctioned payment could have been accepted without leave
- 3 Whether defendants are entitled to costs incurred after that date and on what basis (party-to-party or indemnity)
Ratio Decidendi
Applying Order 22 r 23 RDC, plaintiffs failed to beat the sanctioned payment of HK$320,000; court disallowed interest on damages and special damages from 7 January 2015 to judgment; defendants liable for interest and plaintiffs' costs up to 6 January 2015; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs from 7 January 2015 to 23 March 2016 on a party-to-party basis (indemnity refused) and interest on those costs awarded at 4.5% p.a.; sums awarded to the minor already ordered paid into court remain so, HK$37,761 plus accrued interest to be kept in court, and the balance of the sanctioned payment after those retentions to be paid out to defendants.
Court Disposition
Order Nisi varied to restrict interest to period up to 6 January 2015, award defendants costs from 7 January 2015 to judgment on party-to-party basis, award interest on those costs at 4.5% p.a., retain specified sums in court and pay balance of sanctioned payment to defendants; plaintiffs to pay costs of summons on...
Orders
- 1st and 2nd defendants to pay interest on general damages at 2% per annum from date of writ (29 Oct 2013) until 6 Jan 2015 only.
- 1st and 2nd defendants to pay interest on special damages at half judgment rate from date of accident (16 Apr 2013) until 6 Jan 2015 only.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment