Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance of payment

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2023

ASAHI IWASAWA & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. SHIBAKAWA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA969/2014

The Form 23 notice filed by the Defendant complied with the mandatory requirements of Order 22 rule 8 and therefore constituted a valid standalone sanctioned payment of HK$500,000 which the Plaintiff validly accepted; Order 22 must be applied according to its terms and the parties' contractual intentions or assertions of 'common sense' cannot override the statutory procedural scheme, entitling the Plaintiff to the consequential relief and costs under Order 22.
9 Sept 2008

LIU CHUNG CHING v. A.S. WATSON GROUP (HK) LTD t/a Park\'n SHOP AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIU CHUNG CHING v. A.S. WATSON GROUP (HK) LTD t/a Park\'n SHOP AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1041/2008

The 2nd Defendant's notice expressly stated the sum was in satisfaction of "all the causes of action in respect of which the Plaintiff claims"; the Plaintiff accepted that payment; therefore under Order 22 r.3(4) all further proceedings in the action are stayed as to both defendants, entitling the Plaintiff to costs up to acceptance under O.62 r.10(2) and requiring the 2nd Defendant to pay the 1st Defendant's wasted costs up to receipt of the Plaintiff's notice of acceptance.
17 Nov 2003

SUN JIANQIANG v. TRANS-ISLAND LIMOUSINE SERVICE LTD

Citation

SUN JIANQIANG v. TRANS-ISLAND LIMOUSINE SERVICE LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2003

Appeal allowed. The Ruling that acceptance of the payment in entitled the applicant to judgment on liability was erroneous; payment into court under Rule 20(1) does not automatically admit liability and, where acceptance occurred outside Order 22 r 3(1)'s 14-day period, the court should have controlled the process; the judge should have exercised her jurisdiction to reopen and reverse the Ruling and accordingly paragraphs (1)-(3) of the District Court order were set aside and substituted with orders granting leave to accept, payout and staying further proceedings; costs orders otherwise uphel…
21 Jun 2003

LI KWOK SHING v. LAW KA FU t/a WING FAI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI KWOK SHING v. LAW KA FU t/a WING FAI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2002

Order 22 of the Rules of the District Court applies mutatis mutandis to Employees' Compensation proceedings where the Employees Compensation Rules are silent or incomplete; Rule 20 of the ECR does not displace O 22; therefore an applicant may accept a payment into court under O 22 and is entitled to costs up to and including the date of acceptance (here 16 October 2001), and the District Judge's cost allocation was set aside and substituted accordingly.
29 Jan 2003

WONG MEI NA v. GENRYOKU SUSHI CO. LTD.

Citation

WONG MEI NA v. GENRYOKU SUSHI CO. LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC892/2000

Rule 20(2) applies generally and is not confined to cases going to trial; the court has discretion on costs. Given the respondent paid into court a total of $125,000 and the applicant accepted that payment, the proper allocation was that the respondent pay the applicant's party-and-party costs up to 10 September 2002 plus costs of the summons dated 10 October 2002 and the hearing on 16 October 2002, while the applicant pay the respondent's party-and-party costs after 10 September 2002 including the hearing on 14 November 2002; the applicant's own costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
17 Sept 2002

Cheung Kwai Leung v. Heng Tat Construction Co. Ltd.

Citation

Cheung Kwai Leung v. Heng Tat Construction Co. Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC367/2001

Payment into court under Rule 20(1) does not amount to an admission of liability and does not permit entry of judgment on mere acceptance; if parties wish to treat payment in as full and final settlement the proper method is to obtain court approval by consent summons or other formal determination under section 18A/18(a).
29 Nov 2001

LI KWOK SHING v. LAW KA FU & ANOTHER

Citation

LI KWOK SHING v. LAW KA FU & ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC654/2000

Order 22 Cap.336 does not apply to Employees Compensation claims governed by the Employees Compensation Rules Cap.282; an ECC applicant cannot unilaterally accept monies paid into court under Order 22 to terminate proceedings and obtain automatic costs; acceptance in ECC cases requires court involvement (eg consent summons or court determination); costs should be apportioned with the cut-off being the date of receipt of notice of the last payment into court and the Respondent was ordered to pay Applicant's costs up to and including that date with the Applicant to pay Respondent's costs therea…
20 Oct 1998

GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASIA LTD. v. HAMPTON WINTER & GLYNN (A FIRM) AND OTHERS and HILL TAYLOR DICKINSON (Third Party)

Citation

GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE ASIA LTD. v. HAMPTON WINTER & GLYNN (A FIRM) AND OTHERS and HILL TAYLOR DICKINSON (Third Party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5570/1996

Claims against 1st/2nd Defendants and 3rd Defendant were severable; Order 22 r.3(4) and r.4 apply to joint/alternative claims but not to several claims; where plaintiff wishes to discontinue proceedings against a non-paying co-defendant the court has jurisdiction under Order 21 r.3 and s.52A to make costs orders as it thinks just, and applying the test of whether it was not unreasonable to join and pursue the non-paying defendant the court ordered the 1st and 2nd Defendants to pay (a) the Plaintiff's costs of prosecuting the claim against the 3rd Defendant and (b) the 3rd Defendant's costs of…
10 Apr 1992

MINGSON INDUSTRIES LTD. v. LIN SHUN HUNG STEPHEN

Citation

MINGSON INDUSTRIES LTD. v. LIN SHUN HUNG STEPHEN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6560/1990

The defendant did not breach the implied duty to exercise reasonable skill by instructing acceptance of a post-dated cheque after unsuccessful attempts to contact superiors; the decision was reasonable under the circumstances, the plaintiff accepted the cheque and issued a receipt, causation was not established, and the employer cannot convert an employee into a guarantor of a customer's creditworthiness; claim dismissed.