TSANG CHIU TUNG v. 陳創成經營成記水喉渠務工程 AND ANOTHER

TSANG CHIU TUNG v. 陳創成經營成記水喉渠務工程 AND ANOTHER

Because the applicant obtained an award exceeding the sanctioned payments, O.22 r.23 did not apply; the without prejudice offers could not substitute for sanctioned payments required by O.22 r.3(2); the unsuccessful issues were not discrete events that caused wasted hearing time or unjustifiably increased costs; therefore the nisi costs order was made absolute and the respondents' application to vary costs was dismissed.

Citation
TSANG CHIU TUNG v. 陳創成經營成記水喉渠務工程 AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Tsang; 1st Respondent (employer): 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent (principal Contractor): 2nd Respondent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2011
Case Number
DCEC713/2009
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Compensation Under Employees Compensation Ordinance / Post Assessment Costs Application Following Assessment Judgment
Outcome
Respondents' application dismissed; costs order dated 25 November 2010 made absolute in favour of the Applicant
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Sanctioned Payment, Without Prejudice Offer, Costs Discretion, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Costs Law Employees Compensation Ordinance Sanctioned Payment Without Prejudice Offer Costs Discretion +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsang

Applicant

1st Respondent

1st Respondent (employer)

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent (principal Contractor)

Procedural Posture

Assessment of Compensation Under Employees Compensation Ordinance / Post Assessment Costs Application Following Assessment Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should succeed in varying the nisi costs order and be awarded costs against the applicant
  2. 2 Whether without prejudice settlement offers can be taken into account in lieu of sanctioned payments under Order 22
  3. 3 Whether parts of the applicant's case that failed justify depriving him of costs for those parts

Ratio Decidendi

Because the applicant obtained an award exceeding the sanctioned payments, O.22 r.23 did not apply; the without prejudice offers could not substitute for sanctioned payments required by O.22 r.3(2); the unsuccessful issues were not discrete events that caused wasted hearing time or unjustifiably increased costs; therefore the nisi costs order was made absolute and the respondents' application to vary costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application dismissed; costs order dated 25 November 2010 made absolute in favour of the Applicant

Orders

  • The costs order made on 25 November 2010 is made absolute
  • The Respondents' application to vary the costs order is dismissed