LAM SHUN YUEN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUET KIU AND ANOTHER

LAM SHUN YUEN AND ANOTHER v. WONG SUET KIU AND ANOTHER

Defendants failed to establish the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to displace the prima facie costs entitlement under O.22 r.20 and failed to show they gave prior warning before plaintiffs accepted the sanctioned payment; consequently leave to disclose mediation communications was refused and the defendants' summons was dismissed, with costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Citation
[2024] HKDC 2056
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Lam Shun Yuen; 2nd Plaintiff: Un In Heng; 1st Defendant: Wong Suet Kiu; 2nd Defendant: Chan Hon Chiu
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 2024
Case Number
DCCJ1317/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (water Seepage Claim) / Application for Costs and Disclosure of Mediation Communications (paper Disposal)
Outcome
Summons dated 4 July 2024 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sanctioned Payment, Otherwise Proviso, Prior Warning Requirement, Mediation Confidentiality, Leave to Disclose Mediation Communications, Summary Assessment of Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Mediation Law Evidence/confidentiality Sanctioned Payment Otherwise Proviso Prior Warning Requirement Mediation Confidentiality +2 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Shun Yuen

1st Plaintiff

Un In Heng

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Suet Kiu

1st Defendant

Chan Hon Chiu

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (water Seepage Claim) / Application for Costs and Disclosure of Mediation Communications (paper Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should displace the prima facie costs entitlement under O.22 r.20 upon acceptance of a sanctioned payment by applying the Otherwise Proviso
  2. 2 Whether defendants gave prior warning to plaintiffs of an application to invoke the Otherwise Proviso before plaintiffs accepted the sanctioned payment
  3. 3 Whether mediation communications may be disclosed under the Mediation Ordinance ss.8 or 10 to prove the prerequisites for invoking the Otherwise Proviso

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to establish the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required to displace the prima facie costs entitlement under O.22 r.20 and failed to show they gave prior warning before plaintiffs accepted the sanctioned payment; consequently leave to disclose mediation communications was refused and the defendants' summons was dismissed, with costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 4 July 2024 dismissed.

Orders

  • Dismiss the defendants' summons dated 4 July 2024.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs costs of and occasioned by the summons with certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at HK$60,000.