Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Order 22 rdc

  • 22 Jul 2024

    LAW CHUNG TAI v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1157
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI174/2021

    The plaintiff's letter did not satisfy Order 22 rule 5(7) and therefore was not a valid sanctioned offer; the exclusionary rule in Order 62 rule 5(1)(d) requires the court to disregard the Calderbank offer for costs purposes; the parties' common mistaken belief cannot disapply that exclusion; the facts did not demonstrate conduct warranting indemnity costs; accordingly the 2nd Defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the action including the aborted trial on a party and party basis, and specific apportionments are ordered for the summonses.

  • 6 May 2024

    FUNG LAI HAN v. CHAN LAI ON

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 602
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4582/2020

    The payment into court of $360,300 complied with Order 22 formalities and was a valid sanctioned payment; the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of proving it would be unjust to apply Order 22 r23 consequences; therefore the plaintiff must pay defendant's costs on party-party basis up to 24 March 2021 and on an indemnity basis thereafter, with enhanced interest at half of 1% above judgment rates from 25 March 2021 to 15 December 2023 and judgment rate thereafter; plaintiff to pay 50% of defendant's costs of the present application to be summarily assessed.

  • 7 Jun 2022

    CHAU SO MAN SUE v. CHOW WAI FONG ALICE

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 541
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5648/2018

    The sanctioned offer of 26 March 2019 complied with Order 22; the plaintiff achieved a better outcome (recovery of HK$200,000 versus offered HK$198,000), and because the plaintiff abandoned a lien claim for legitimate tactical reasons and the defendant's refusal was unreasonable given strong legal authority, the plaintiff is entitled to enhanced interest and indemnity costs; enhanced interest was fixed at 5% above judgment rate and indemnity costs from 24 April 2019 until full payment; certificate for counsel allowed.

  • 18 Oct 2021

    楊艷娥 對 保良局第一張永慶中學

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 1287
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC1529/2012

    法院裁定答辯人於2018年2月7日繳存$50,000附帶條款付款，申請人未在28天內接受該付款，故自2018年3月8日起至判決日（2018年6月29日）按彌償基準評定答辯人之訟費並給予提高利息，惟在附帶條款付款作出前之和解提議不構成可自動支持彌償基準的依據；考慮申請人無律師但具相當理解能力及其拒絕和解之態度不構成不公，法院遂以判定利率加2%作為提高利率；關於更改傳票之訟費，鑑於答辯人未完全勝訴，命令申請人以訴訟各方對評基準支付答辯人50%的訟費，並准予發放$50,000及其利息予答辯人。

  • 30 Nov 2020

    SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN, ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUNG

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 1084
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4453/2008

    The Court held that the Court of Appeal’s orders made costs of earlier proceedings 'in the cause' such that those costs follow the final award in the retrial; the plaintiff obtained specific performance for all 6 car parks and therefore did better than her sanctioned offer to forgo 2 spaces; the defendant failed to show it would be unjust to apply Order 22 r.24 consequences; accordingly the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s costs from 9 August 2019 on an indemnity basis with enhanced interest at 4.5% and earlier costs on a party-and-party basis to 8 August 2019.

  • 8 Mar 2019

    WU KIN HO v. WONG KONG HOP KENNETH

    Citation
    [2019] HKDC 324
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2469/2014

    Leave to appeal refused because on the facts the Second Sanctioned Offer was intended to and did supersede the First, the Second contained impermissible terms as to costs rendering no valid sanctioned offer available under O 22, the plaintiff failed to disclose the Second Sanctioned Offer in the variation application thereby justifying indemnity costs against the plaintiff, and O 22 is a self-contained code displacing reliance on O 62 in this context.

  • 6 Nov 2015

    NG POK LEUNG v. NG POK MAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    NG POK LEUNG v. NG POK MAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3883/2012

    The offer must be assessed by reference to counterclaims/set‑offs extant when the offer was made; the 1st defendant's claim arose after the offer and was not part of the offer's calculus, therefore the plaintiff bettered the sanctioned offer and was entitled to the specified consequences under Order 22 r24, namely indemnity costs (from 2 July 2013), enhanced interest on the Judgment Sum (4% above judgment rate from 2 July 2013) and interest on indemnity costs (1% above judgment rate from 2 July 2013).

  • 26 Aug 2015

    曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻

    Citation
    曾氏工程公司 v. 林慧嫻
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3596/2011

    The Offer failed to comply with Order 22 rule 5(7) RDC because it did not provide the required terms for acceptance after 28 days and did not clearly delineate reserved costs rights; therefore it was not a sanctioned offer and the plaintiff could not claim indemnity costs under Order 22 rule 24 RDC; the court also declined to exercise its discretion to award indemnity costs on the facts.

  • 25 Jun 2007

    WONG CHING WAN v. A S WATSON & CO LTD

    Citation
    WONG CHING WAN v. A S WATSON & CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC770/2005

    No special circumstances existed to displace the ordinary consequence of a payment into court: the Applicant failed to accept the payment within the prescribed period and could not show conduct by the Respondent that justified deviation. Therefore the Applicant must pay the Respondent's costs incurred after 22 April 2006 and the Respondent pays Applicant's costs up to and including 22 April 2006; costs to be taxed if not agreed.