WONG KWEI PIU v. CHOW CHI CHEUNG t/a SUN LEE CO

WONG KWEI PIU v. CHOW CHI CHEUNG t/a SUN LEE CO

The court held it was not unjust to apply O22 r23 consequences for the EC Action: respondent pays applicant's costs party and party up to 8 August 2017; after that applicant must pay respondent's costs on indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, with enhanced interest applied to identified payments (calculated by applying prime rate plus 4% to each actual payment date). Leave to adduce late solicitor affirmation (Tam's 2nd) was granted; leave to adduce Wu's and Piu's affirmations was refused for the EC summons but partly granted for the PI summons; the PI application to vary interest and to deprive applicant of costs was dismissed because applicant had beaten the PI sanctioned...

Citation
[2023] HKDC 1253
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Wong Kwei Piu; Respondent/defendant: Chow Chi Cheung trading as Sun Lee Co.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2023
Case Number
DCPI2318/2017
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation and Personal Injuries (conjoined) / Post‑judgment Variation Summonses (costs, Interest and Leave to Adduce Evidence)
Outcome
EC variation partly allowed; PI variation dismissed; mixed costs orders and directions for taxation and liberty to apply for wasted costs
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Payment, Set‑off, Variation of Costs Orders, Enhanced Interest on Costs, Leave to Adduce Fresh Evidence, Professional Conduct/wasted Costs
Source Language
EN
Employees' Compensation Personal Injury Civil Procedure Costs Law Legal Aid Administration Sanctioned Payment Set‑off Variation of Costs Orders +3 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Kwei Piu

Applicant/plaintiff

Chow Chi Cheung trading as Sun Lee Co.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation and Personal Injuries (conjoined) / Post‑judgment Variation Summonses (costs, Interest and Leave to Adduce Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it would be unjust to apply Order 22 r 23 consequences for failure to accept EC sanctioned payment
  2. 2 Whether to vary interest awarded in PI judgment to reflect set‑off by EC sanctioned payment
  3. 3 Admissibility of additional affirmations (Ladd v Marshall test)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held it was not unjust to apply O22 r23 consequences for the EC Action: respondent pays applicant's costs party and party up to 8 August 2017; after that applicant must pay respondent's costs on indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, with enhanced interest applied to identified payments (calculated by applying prime rate plus 4% to each actual payment date). Leave to adduce late solicitor affirmation (Tam's 2nd) was granted; leave to adduce Wu's and Piu's affirmations was refused for the EC summons but partly granted for the PI summons; the PI application to vary interest and to deprive applicant of costs was dismissed because applicant had beaten the PI sanctioned...

Court Disposition

EC variation partly allowed; PI variation dismissed; mixed costs orders and directions for taxation and liberty to apply for wasted costs