YEUNG WING YIU v. LO SHUK CHING, t/a CHUN-HO AIR-CONDITION ENG CO AND ANOTHER

YEUNG WING YIU v. LO SHUK CHING, t/a CHUN-HO AIR-CONDITION ENG CO AND ANOTHER

The summons was prematurely issued because the applicant unreasonably demanded immediate answers; although the 2nd Respondent supplied the information before the original hearing, the applicant rejected reasonable offers to withdraw the summons; balancing fairness and conduct, the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion is to make no order as to costs while directing the applicant's own costs be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 571
Parties
Applicant: Yeung Wing Yiu; 1st Respondent: Lo Shuk Ching trading as Chun-Ho Air-Condition Eng Co.; 2nd Respondent: Gilman Group Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Case Number
DCEC2576/2019
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation / Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories; Summons Withdrawn; Costs Application Determined on Paper
Outcome
No order as to costs; Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Service of Interrogatories, Costs Order, Legal Aid, Principal Contractor Status, Sub Contractor Status
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Administrative Procedure Interrogatories Service of Interrogatories Costs Order +3 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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeung Wing Yiu

Applicant

Lo Shuk Ching trading as Chun-Ho Air-Condition Eng Co.

1st Respondent

Gilman Group Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation / Application for Leave to Serve Interrogatories; Summons Withdrawn; Costs Application Determined on Paper

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summons for leave to serve interrogatories was prematurely issued
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Respondent was obliged to answer the interrogatories without court order
  3. 3 Allocation of costs following withdrawal of the summons

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was prematurely issued because the applicant unreasonably demanded immediate answers; although the 2nd Respondent supplied the information before the original hearing, the applicant rejected reasonable offers to withdraw the summons; balancing fairness and conduct, the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion is to make no order as to costs while directing the applicant's own costs be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs; Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations

Orders

  • No order as to the costs of the summons
  • Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations