3 Sept 2018
蔡文榮及另一人 對 黃騰開
- Citation
- [2018] HKDC 1083
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ4825/2016
The court found the 4 July 2017 proposal was validly served by fax (receipt proved) and that the judgment obtained was overall more favourable to the plaintiffs; although the proposal lacked the exact mandatory wording of Order 22(5)(7) the court exercised its discretion under Order 22(2)(4) to vary the interim costs order and awarded costs on an indemnity basis from 2 August 2017; the defendant's contention about an additional testing requirement was rejected because the injunction necessarily required verification of remedial work.