Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Order 22 rule 23 rdc

  • 30 Nov 2023

    SHRESTHA DENIKA v. PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1677
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1661/2021

    Order 22 rule 23 applied because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment better than the sanctioned payment; it was not unjust to make the orders under that rule. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on quantum from 10 December 2021 on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, awarded interest only on the sum of HK$190,990 actually paid by the defendant's insurer at half of judgment rate plus 1% per annum from 10 December 2021 to 3 November 2023 and judgment rate thereafter until full payment, disallowed interest on the Judgment Sum pursuant to Order 22 r23(2)…

  • 1 Sept 2021

    TSE LAI SING V. TUNG WAH GROUP OF HOSPITALS

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 1095
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCEC1754/2016

    Applicant failed to obtain a judgment better than the sanctioned payment and put forward no basis to displace the mandatory consequence in Order 22 r 23; therefore the court ordered costs on party-and-party basis up to 17 October 2016 and indemnity costs from 18 October 2016, awarded enhanced interest on costs at 6.5% per annum from 18 October 2016 to 31 May 2021 (then judgment rate), disallowed interest on the assessed compensation after 17 October 2016, ordered repayment of the $9,027.93 overpaid interim payment, and granted leave to release the remaining sanctioned payment of $12,956.17 to…

  • 7 Mar 2018

    NG HAU WAN v. NG PIK CHU NAOMI

    Citation
    [2018] HKDC 238
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4557/2014

    Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff did not demonstrate a real prospect of success given the trial judge's entitled deference to his credibility and factual findings; the defendant's sanctioned offer which included a term as to costs did not fall squarely within Order 22 consequences, therefore the defendant was not entitled to the indemnity costs and enhanced interest sought; accordingly the defendant's summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and existing costs orders were made absolute.

  • 11 Jul 2016

    IRVING MATTHEW WILLIAM AND ANOTHER v. MAN CHUN YEUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    IRVING MATTHEW WILLIAM AND ANOTHER v. MAN CHUN YEUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI2242/2013

    Applying Order 22 r 23 RDC, plaintiffs failed to beat the sanctioned payment of HK$320,000; court disallowed interest on damages and special damages from 7 January 2015 to judgment; defendants liable for interest and plaintiffs' costs up to 6 January 2015; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs from 7 January 2015 to 23 March 2016 on a party-to-party basis (indemnity refused) and interest on those costs awarded at 4.5% p.a.; sums awarded to the minor already ordered paid into court remain so, HK$37,761 plus accrued interest to be kept in court, and the balance of the sanctioned payment after tho…

  • 11 Jun 2015

    HUI WAI MAN v. CHAN MEI WAH

    Citation
    HUI WAI MAN v. CHAN MEI WAH
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1948/2012

    The offer to withdraw with no order as to costs was a genuine sanctioned offer made after close of pleadings and disclosure; the plaintiff did not obtain a judgment more advantageous than the offer and rejection was not reasonably justified; therefore it was not unjust to apply the specified consequences under Order 22 rule 23 RDC and the Order Nisi is varied to award party-and-party costs up to 9 June 2014, indemnity costs thereafter, interest on specified disbursements and taxation where applicable.