20 Jul 2011
CHAN CHEUK KWAN v. HO KAM WO AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- CHAN CHEUK KWAN v. HO KAM WO AND ANOTHER
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCPI2103/2010
The court will not exercise its discretion under Order 22 rule 20(1) to deprive the plaintiff of costs merely because the sanctioned payment accepted matched an earlier pre-action offer. Pre-action offers are relevant but identicality alone does not generate exceptional or compelling circumstances to order costs otherwise; consequently the defendants' summons was dismissed and the plaintiff is entitled to costs as provided by Order 22 rule 20(1).