CHAN NGAN FA v. CUI YOU JUN AND OTHERS

CHAN NGAN FA v. CUI YOU JUN AND OTHERS

The court exercised its discretion under Order 21 r.3(1) and departed from the general rule because the 1st and 2nd defendants were at least partly to blame for the unnecessary proceedings by being the only parties with knowledge of the true employer; therefore the correct costs order is no order as to costs.

Citation
CHAN NGAN FA v. CUI YOU JUN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Unknown Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: China Venture International; 2nd Defendant: CVI Modern Technology Development Limited; 3rd Defendant: The Hong Kong Polymer Science Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2009
Case Number
DCPI832/2007
Procedural Posture
Negligence/personal Injury; Vicarious Liability; Costs Dispute / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance and Assessment of Damages
Outcome
No order as to costs between the parties
Legal Topics
Discontinuance, Costs Orders, Court Discretion on Costs, Joinder, Discovery and Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Vicarious Liability Civil Procedure Costs Discontinuance Costs Orders Court Discretion on Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Plaintiff

Plaintiff

China Venture International

1st Defendant

CVI Modern Technology Development Limited

2nd Defendant

The Hong Kong Polymer Science Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence/personal Injury; Vicarious Liability; Costs Dispute / Costs Determination Following Discontinuance and Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff should pay costs after discontinuing claim against the 1st and 2nd defendants
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under Order 21 r.3(1) to depart from the general rule on costs
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants' conduct in withholding identity of the employer justifies departure from the general rule

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under Order 21 r.3(1) and departed from the general rule because the 1st and 2nd defendants were at least partly to blame for the unnecessary proceedings by being the only parties with knowledge of the true employer; therefore the correct costs order is no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs between the parties

Orders

  • No order as to costs