WONG PING KONG 對 NG HON SUNG t/a YUEN SHING ENGINEERING CO 及另一人

WONG PING KONG 對 NG HON SUNG t/a YUEN SHING ENGINEERING CO 及另一人

Application to vary the costs order was dismissed because the plaintiff credibly asserted he was unaware of the defendants' conditional payments, so he could not have accepted them; imposing indemnity costs and enhanced interest would be unjust under Order 22 Rule 23, and there was no evidence to rebut the plaintiff's account.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 901
Parties
Plaintiff: WONG PING KONG; First Defendant: NG HON SUNG trading as YUEN SHING ENGINEERING CO; Second Defendant: HONG KONG KWONG TAI BUILDERS LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Case Number
DCPI2748/2019
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury (district Court) / Post Judgment Costs Variation Application
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Payments, Costs Orders, Interest on Costs, Failure to Notify Client, District Court Rules Order 22 Rule 23
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Legal Professional Conduct Conditional Payments Costs Orders Interest on Costs Failure to Notify Client +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG PING KONG

Plaintiff

NG HON SUNG trading as YUEN SHING ENGINEERING CO

First Defendant

HONG KONG KWONG TAI BUILDERS LIMITED

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury (district Court) / Post Judgment Costs Variation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary a costs order post-judgment to require the plaintiff to pay defendants' costs assessed on indemnity basis and interest above judgment rate because defendants made conditional payments
  2. 2 Whether a plaintiff's lack of knowledge of defendants' conditional payments makes such costs and interest orders unjust under Order 22 Rule 23
  3. 3 Whether the court may amend orders before sealing and the applicable discretionary factors under Rule 23(6)

Ratio Decidendi

Application to vary the costs order was dismissed because the plaintiff credibly asserted he was unaware of the defendants' conditional payments, so he could not have accepted them; imposing indemnity costs and enhanced interest would be unjust under Order 22 Rule 23, and there was no evidence to rebut the plaintiff's account.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs