20 Nov 2024
史超 v. 均富有限公司 AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2024] HKDC 1909
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ5015/2017
The application was allowed because the plaintiff failed to prove it would be unjust to apply the default rule in O.22 r.23: the sanctioned payment was served in time, the plaintiff and his adviser had sufficient information and time to consider it, the plaintiff gave no evidence and did not contest the application, and the plaintiff's conduct (including withholding the sale of the premises) justified awarding costs from 30 August 2023 on an indemnity basis, imposing enhanced interest at 2% above judgment rate on costs and releasing the sanctioned payment to the 2nd defendant.