TAM LI KAM WAH AGNES v. WONG PUI HANG WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

TAM LI KAM WAH AGNES v. WONG PUI HANG WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

Court held Order 13 r 2 was the correct basis to re-enter interlocutory judgment against the 1st defendant for 85% liability (plaintiff having conceded 15% contributory negligence) because the 1st defendant had not given notice of intention to defend; Orders 14 r 1 and 19 r 3 were inapplicable; D2 could not bind D1...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 805
Parties
Plaintiff (administratrix of the Estate of Tam Michael Arthur Shiu Cheung): TAM LI KAM WAH AGNES; 1st Defendant: Personal representative of Wong Ian Yik, deceased; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant (motor insurer)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Case Number
HCPI117/2017
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries (fatal Accidents) / Decision on Assessment of Costs Following Interlocutory Judgment and Consent Summons (summary Assessment)
Outcome
Interlocutory judgment entered against the 1st defendant for 85% liability; costs of the summons awarded to the plaintiff and summarily assessed at HK$52,079.34; other procedural directions given regarding lodging statements of costs and objections.
Legal Topics
Summary Assessment of Costs, Interlocutory/default Judgment, Order 13 RHC, Order 14 RHC, Order 19 RHC, Motor Insurer Statutory Liability
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Personal Injuries Insurance Law Summary Assessment of Costs Interlocutory/default Judgment Order 13 RHC Order 14 RHC Order 19 RHC +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TAM LI KAM WAH AGNES

Plaintiff (administratrix of the Estate of Tam Michael Arthur Shiu Cheung)

Personal representative of Wong Ian Yik, deceased

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant (motor insurer)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries (fatal Accidents) / Decision on Assessment of Costs Following Interlocutory Judgment and Consent Summons (summary Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory judgment could be entered against the 1st defendant and on what procedural basis
  2. 2 Whether Order 14 r 1 or Order 19 r 3 applied or whether Order 13 r 2 was the correct basis
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant (insurer) could bind the 1st defendant or act for him given repudiation of the policy

Ratio Decidendi

Court held Order 13 r 2 was the correct basis to re-enter interlocutory judgment against the 1st defendant for 85% liability (plaintiff having conceded 15% contributory negligence) because the 1st defendant had not given notice of intention to defend; Orders 14 r 1 and 19 r 3 were inapplicable; D2 could not bind D1 by virtue of its repudiation though it could appear as an interested party; costs of the summons were summarily assessed and allowed in part, quantified at HK$52,079.34 and awarded to the plaintiff to be paid by the 1st defendant under the court's timetable.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory judgment entered against the 1st defendant for 85% liability; costs of the summons awarded to the plaintiff and summarily assessed at HK$52,079.34; other procedural directions given regarding lodging statements of costs and objections.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment for 85% liability in respect of plaintiff's FAO and LARCO claims entered in favour of plaintiff against 1st defendant for damages to be assessed and costs on liability (D1 Judgment)
  • D1 to pay plaintiff's costs of the summons filed 8 December 2021 to be summarily assessed and paid within 28 days of assessment (Cost Order)