Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insurance coverage dispute

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC241/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs; however, because R1 has a substantive and arguable claim against its insurer Ming An and Ming An has effectively taken over conduct of the defence making it a de facto interested party, it is just and convenient to stay execution of the indemnity order pending determination of R1's insurance claim; R1 must commence that insurer claim within 42 days and pay interest at half judgment rate during the stay.
6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC246/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs and interest, but exercise of the court’s discretion warranted staying execution of the indemnity order because there was a substantial unresolved insurance coverage dispute with Ming An, Ming An had effectively conducted R2’s defence and was a de facto party, and the circumstances made a stay just and convenient; the stay was granted subject to R1 filing a claim against Ming An within 42 days and payment of interest at half the judgment rate during the stay.
6 Aug 2007

LI YUEN YAU v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI YUEN YAU v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC153/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to a full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs and interest, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay execution of that indemnity order until determination of R1's pending claim against insurer Ming An (or further order), directing R1 to commence that insurer claim within 42 days and to pay interest at half judgment rate during the stay; costs of the summonses were awarded to R1 to be taxed if not agreed.
6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC242/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to a full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) of the Ordinance (including costs) but, applying the inherent jurisdiction and relevant stay factors, it was just and convenient to stay execution of that indemnity order pending determination of R1's substantive claim against its insurer Ming An because Ming An had a special, de facto role in the proceedings and R1's claim against Ming An was of substance and effectively a countervailing claim; conditional procedural steps and interest directions were ordered.
6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC245/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to a full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (including costs). However, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and having regard to the close relationship between R2 and insurer Ming An and the bona fide disputed insurance coverage, the court stayed execution of the indemnity order until determination of R1's claim against Ming An (or further order), with R1 to file that claim within 42 days and to pay interest at half judgment rate on the indemnified amount until determination or payment.
6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC243/2004

The court held R2 is entitled to a full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs and interest, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay execution of that indemnity order pending determination of R1's substantive claim against its insurer Ming An due to the close operational and legal relationship between R2 and Ming An which made the insurer effectively a de facto party; R1 ordered to file its claim against Ming An within 42 days and to pay interest at half the judgment rate during the stay, with costs awarded to R1 for the summons hearing to be taxed if not agreed.
6 Aug 2007

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TING KAM YUEN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC244/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) of the Ordinance including costs, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of that indemnity order until determination of R1's pending claim against its insurer (Ming An), on the grounds that Ming An was effectively involved in the proceedings and R1 had a substantive insurance claim which made a stay just and convenient.
6 Aug 2007

LEE CHIU LAN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE CHIU LAN v. VIATECH ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC154/2004

The court held that R2 is entitled to a full indemnity from R1 under s.24(2) including costs, but exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay execution of the indemnity order as justice required pending determination of R1's substantive claim against its insurer Ming An, given the close practical relationship between R2 and Ming An and the substantial, viable insurer dispute; R1 must pursue its insurer claim within a set time and pay interest at half judgment rate during the stay.