Hong Kong Case Law

27 Jun 2000

LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM CHIK CHEUNG v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS AND ANOTHER

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCPI1003/1998

The judge found that the plaintiff and two witnesses had fabricated evidence and effectively conspired to pervert the course of justice, an abuse of process which justified awarding costs on an indemnity basis; the court nonetheless expressly declined to criticise the plaintiff's solicitors and counsel.

• Indemnity costs
• Abuse of process
• Fraudulent claim
• Legal aid taxation
• Referral to director of public prosecutions

24 Jun 1998

SUNNY IJAZ SALEEM t/a TIME PASIFIC INTERNATIONAL v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO (ASIA) LTD

Citation

SUNNY IJAZ SALEEM t/a TIME PASIFIC INTERNATIONAL v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO (ASIA) LTD

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA8689/1993

Because the judge found as a fact that the claim was made fraudulently and the circumstances therefore justified special treatment, the defendant was entitled to costs on an indemnity scale; additionally, the written closing submissions materially assisted the court and their fees are allowable as half refreshers; costs of the costs application are also payable by the plaintiff on an indemnity scale while the plaintiff's own costs are to be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

• Insurance claim
• Fraudulent claim
• Indemnity costs
• Counsel fees for written submissions
• Taxation of costs

KANT S.K. YEOH t/a MAJOR MERCANTILE CO v. NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

KANT S.K. YEOH t/a MAJOR MERCANTILE CO v. NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE CO LTD

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACV37/1969

The trial judge's factual findings that the appellant's claimed losses were unsupported, inconsistent and tainted by probable fabrication were justified on the evidence (including credible adjusters' testimony and absence of physical/documentary proof); the insurer's post‑fire actions did not estop or waive its right to require proof; appellate interference with those primary findings was not warranted, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

• Fire insurance
• Indemnity
• Fraudulent claim
• Estoppel and waiver
• Detinue
• Weight of evidence on appeal