Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Joinder of insurer

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2020

LAW CHUNG TAI v. SUN PROFIT LOGISTICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 544
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC606/2019

Falcon is permitted to be joined as 2nd respondent but its participation is limited to the assessment of compensation (quantum) because an interlocutory judgment on liability was validly entered against the employer and has not been set aside, thereby precluding Falcon from re-opening liability; accordingly leave to join is granted only for quantum and subject to specified costs and case management directions.
31 Dec 2018

LUI YAT LING ELAINE v. TAM KWOK FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1611
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1408/2017

The Court held that the 3rd defendant's statutory liability under s.10(1) of the Ordinance is limited to liabilities for bodily injury (per s.6(1)(b)); the sanctioned payment of HK$50,000 into court was accepted and is to be paid out in satisfaction of the entirety of the plaintiff's bodily injury claim against the 3rd defendant only, and does not extinguish or bar plaintiff pursuing property damage claims by way of AOD against the other defendants; consent orders and joinder could not extend the insurer's statutory liability to property damage.
10 Nov 2016

SHING HO WA, A MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LAM WAI FONG v. REALLY SUPER LTD (formerly known as BRUCE LAW STUNTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHING HO WA, A MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, LAM WAI FONG v. REALLY SUPER LTD (formerly known as BRUCE LAW STUNTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2437/2015

Joinder of the insurer was refused: the intervener's potential liability is contingent until quantification, R2 is properly represented and has raised full defences, there is no material risk of default or disappearance, and joinder would cause unnecessary double representation, delay and increased costs; therefore the court will exercise its discretion to decline joinder at this interlocutory stage.
31 Oct 2013

WONG SHU KEUNG v. KAM LUEN CONSOLIDATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG SHU KEUNG v. KAM LUEN CONSOLIDATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC638/2010

The court has jurisdiction to set aside the consent judgment; MSIG demonstrated a meritorious defence (the employer's written denial of an employment relationship undermining the basis of the consent judgment) and the delay was not sufficiently prejudicial to bar relief, therefore the court exercised its discretion to set aside the judgment and permit MSIG to challenge liability and quantum.
19 Nov 2008

MOHAMMAD SHAHID v. FAME RICH CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MOHAMMAD SHAHID v. FAME RICH CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI990/2007

Under s43(3) EOC the insurer (Wing Lung) must be added and is entitled to defend because its funds are at risk and joinder will not necessarily amount to approbation of the policy where the insurer relies on contractual terms to deny liability; no substantive delay to the plaintiff was shown, so joinder is justified.
17 Oct 2008

TANG FOOK TAI v. YANG FANG LANG t/a SINON ORCHIDS NURSERY

Citation

TANG FOOK TAI v. YANG FANG LANG t/a SINON ORCHIDS NURSERY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC144/2008

Order 11 of the Rules of the District Court applies mutatis mutandis to employees compensation proceedings and supplements rule 14 of the Employees' Compensation Rules; accordingly the court may grant leave to serve out of jurisdiction but only subject to specific procedural safeguards (detailed affidavit contents, bilingual notices, specified modes of service, adjusted time for filing an Answer and adjourned hearing) to satisfy the statutory requirements including the one month rule for Form 4 service.
28 Nov 2007

ERNST EDUARD SPRECHER v. ZINGRICH CABLETRANS GMBH AND ANOTHER

Citation

ERNST EDUARD SPRECHER v. ZINGRICH CABLETRANS GMBH AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1498/2006

The Intervener, as insurer under a policy covering employees of subcontractors, had a contingent and direct statutory liability under ss43 and 44 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance and therefore had a legitimate interest and entitlement to apply for joinder; having acted reasonably in the context of potential conflicts, jurisdictional and language issues and imperfect cooperation from insureds, the court exercised its discretion to allow joinder proceedings but ordered that, on the facts, there be no order as to costs in respect of the Summons between the Intervener and the respondents w…
28 Nov 2001

So Wai-hung v. Cheung Kee Fung Cheung Construction Co.Ltd. & others

Citation

So Wai-hung v. Cheung Kee Fung Cheung Construction Co.Ltd. & others
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC154/2000

Although the 1st respondent's conduct justified indemnity costs, the parties had agreed a single basis for taxation for both the 1st respondent and the third party and the third party was significantly less culpable and owed no insurer duty; because the court could not award different bases between them, the fair and just solution was to order costs to the 2nd respondent to be paid by the 1st respondent and the third party on a common fund basis.
21 Jun 2001

LIN KAI HSUAN v. SZETO FOON AND OTHERS

Citation

LIN KAI HSUAN v. SZETO FOON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI480/2000

Although section 44(3) permits the plaintiff to commence proceedings against or join the insurer prior to quantification in the circumstances present (insured insolvent and insurer disclaimed), the Scheme of Arrangements contains a valid and wide Bar to Proceedings moratorium which must be given effect to; accordingly the plaintiff's summons was dismissed and all proceedings against the 3rd defendant were stayed to protect the scheme and the participating company's assets.
18 Jan 2001

TSE NGAN HEUNG v. THE RITZ-CARLTON LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSE NGAN HEUNG v. THE RITZ-CARLTON LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI565/1999

On the facts the second Defendant drove the courtesy car on an unauthorised errand, at excessive speed and with conduct inconsistent with a legitimate job task; his act was an independent wrongful act not sufficiently connected with authorised duties, so the employer was not vicariously liable and liability rests on the driver.