Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 22 rule 5

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2020

CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 850
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC883/2015

The Offer Letter did not comply with the mandatory form and content requirements of O.22 r.5(7) and therefore was not a sanctioned offer; consequently O.22 r.24 consequences (indemnity costs and enhanced interest) could not be imposed. The earlier judgment's preference for the respondent's orthopaedic expert was upheld, so the original costs order nisi stands and the application to vary it is dismissed.
15 May 2020

YEUNG KIU YING v. FAIRWOOD FAST FOOD LTD t/a FAIRWOOD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 293
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2016/2015

The notice of sanctioned payment dated 23 May 2016 complied with Order 22 Rule 8 and was valid on its own; accordingly Order 22 Rule 23 applies because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment better than that sanctioned payment, but due to the defendant's unreasonable and opportunistic contesting of liability the court declined indemnity costs and instead ordered that plaintiff recover costs up to 20 June 2016 on a party and party basis and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs incurred after 20 June 2016 on a party and party basis, with enhanced interest at 1% above judgment rate on…
22 Sept 2004

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD

Citation

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2002

Extension of time was refused for want of contemporaneous affidavit evidence and absence of adequate material to exercise discretion; stay of execution refused because no special circumstances were demonstrated; payment out of monies paid into court was refused under Order 22 r5 because the overall costs position was opaque and it was not just and convenient to authorize payment while costs disputes and taxation remained unresolved, so the status quo must be preserved until costs are clarified.
20 Dec 2001

Sin Sau-wan, Sandra v. Sopex (Hong Kong) Limited

Citation

Sin Sau-wan, Sandra v. Sopex (Hong Kong) Limited
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC152/1998

The court held that respondents had made informed commercial payments-in in light of earlier medical reports and the subsequent reports of Professor Leung did not constitute a substantial change of risk sufficient to make it unfair to hold the respondents to their payments; occupational disease remained a viable conclusion and therefore the applicant was entitled to take the payments out.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHU CHUNG MAN v. EAST ASIA MOVING LTD

YEUNG KIU YING v. FAIRWOOD FAST FOOD LTD t/a FAIRWOOD

ELIZABETH HARRINGTON v. CAP GEMINI ERNST & YOUNG HONG KONG LTD

Sin Sau-wan, Sandra v. Sopex (Hong Kong) Limited