VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD v. THE MING AN INSURANCE CO (HK) LTD

VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD v. THE MING AN INSURANCE CO (HK) LTD

Judge was not satisfied that it was reasonably clear and obvious to the Plaintiff before issuing the O.14 Summons that the Defendant relied on triable contentions; therefore the court would not depart from the usual order that costs of the O.14 Summons be in the cause, but the O.14A application was procedurally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD v. THE MING AN INSURANCE CO (HK) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Viatech Engineering Limited; Defendant: The Ming An Insurance Co. (H.K.) Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 October 2008
Case Number
HCA2393/2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Indemnity Under Employee Compensation Policy (o.14 Summons) / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of O.14 Summons (consent Order 21 August 2008)
Outcome
Partial costs award: costs of defective O.14A application to Defendant; otherwise costs of O.14 Summons in the cause.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs, Privity of Contract, Other Insurance Clause, Double Insurance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Employee Compensation Summary Judgment Costs Privity of Contract Other Insurance Clause Double Insurance

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viatech Engineering Limited

Plaintiff

The Ming An Insurance Co. (H.K.) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Indemnity Under Employee Compensation Policy (o.14 Summons) / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of O.14 Summons (consent Order 21 August 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant raised triable defences (privity of contract and double insurance) sufficient to defeat summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the defendant's triable contentions before issuing the O.14 Summons
  3. 3 Whether the O.14A alternative application was procedurally defective and who should bear its costs

Ratio Decidendi

Judge was not satisfied that it was reasonably clear and obvious to the Plaintiff before issuing the O.14 Summons that the Defendant relied on triable contentions; therefore the court would not depart from the usual order that costs of the O.14 Summons be in the cause, but the O.14A application was procedurally defective and its costs are to be paid by the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Partial costs award: costs of defective O.14A application to Defendant; otherwise costs of O.14 Summons in the cause.

Orders

  • Costs solely incurred for the O.14A application in the O.14 Summons be to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed.
  • Save as to the above, costs of the O.14 Summons be in the cause.