5 Jun 2008
LAM KEI FUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YUE TIN COURT AND OTHERS
- Citation
- LAM KEI FUNG v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF YUE TIN COURT AND OTHERS
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCPI1237/2005
Payment into court under Order 22 can protect a defendant only as between plaintiff and defendant and does not cover contribution issues between co-defendants; the 5 February 2008 offer of contribution was properly admissible under Order 62 r.5 and the 3rd Defendant acted unreasonably in rejecting that offer, so the costs incurred by the 1st and 2nd Defendants after 5 February 2008 on the apportionment issue must be paid by the 3rd Defendant; the 29 August 2007 offer was reasonably rejected by the 1st and 2nd Defendants because it sought terms involving a non-party (Vinci) and indemnities not…