Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement approval

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2023

JI LIHONG v. WELL FAVOUR LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1594
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI849/2021

The court held that the 1st defendant could settle the plaintiff's claim without the 2nd defendant's consent because the settlement was on a without‑admission basis and expressly preserved the 2nd defendant's rights to dispute liability and the reasonableness of the settlement in the contribution proceedings; s3(4) CLCO did not apply to the 2nd defendant because it was not a party who had made or agreed to make the payment; consequently the settlement did not reverse the burden of proof in the contribution proceedings and the proposed settlement was approved with directions for continuation o…
12 Jul 2019

LEE CHI CHIU BY LEE SHUK FAN, HIS NEXT FRIEND v. WU TAI ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 927
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1098/2016

Court exercised its discretion to award the plaintiff costs of the action on a common fund basis on District Court scale to be taxed if not agreed, based on the plaintiff's status as a mentally incapacitated person requiring protection, the long standing practice and applicable rules and guidance; the court accepted the plaintiff solicitors' Primary Undertaking; alternatively, if a cut-off were required the court identified 13 February 2017 as the appropriate cut-off (date of the second accident causing incapacity).
24 May 2019

WAI MING KUI, by WAI FONG FONG, his next friend v. EXPRESS SECURITY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 703
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2254/2018

The next friend's role ceased on the applicant's death; therefore the correct procedure is to make the next friend a party and carry on the proceedings by substituting her for the deceased applicant; accordingly the court ordered substitution, amendment of the title to reflect appointment to represent the estate, and awarded costs to the respondent.
6 Sept 2017

SAPLOR AIDA SABIANO, the next friend of SAPLOR AGNES SABIANO v. NATASHA O. USHER

Citation

SAPLOR AIDA SABIANO, the next friend of SAPLOR AGNES SABIANO v. NATASHA O. USHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1089/2014

The notice to act in person filed by the next friend was invalid because Order 80 rule 2(3) requires a next friend to be represented by solicitors and thus the next friend is not entitled to act in person under Order 62 rule 4; accordingly the notice was set aside and the solicitors on record remain so.
19 Oct 2015

KONG HOI LAM v. CHEUNG YUK KWAN t/a CONCEPT PAINTING COMPANY AND OTHERS

Citation

KONG HOI LAM v. CHEUNG YUK KWAN t/a CONCEPT PAINTING COMPANY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI801/2012

The court made the order approving the parties' settlement (first payment $1.5m and monthly payments of $28,200 for the remainder) but held that there is an internal inconsistency in the ECAO: s20D's cessation of monthly payments on death potentially defeats s20B(1)'s mandate to provide relief equal to damages, and that inconsistency requires legislative attention.
11 Sept 2009

RE A-ONE INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RE A-ONE INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW448/2008

The court found no appearance of prejudiced bias by the provisional liquidators: their adjudications at meetings were proper for voting purposes, their litigation (including Mareva injunction and High Court actions) was properly sanctioned and pursued within court process, no conflict arose from engaging Mallesons as they ceased acting for DB Trustees on company matters, and the Festina settlement was sanctioned; accordingly the master’s appointment of the provisional liquidators as liquidators was within the court's discretion and the appeal was dismissed.
23 Jun 2009

LHY v. LCC AND ANOTHER

Citation

LHY v. LCC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2626/2007

The court approved the proposed settlement subject to replacing any reference to solicitors-and-own-client basis with indemnity basis for the committee and ordered that, on the facts and given the 9 December 2005 appointment order, legal expenses incurred in the two actions are recoverable from LHY's estate on an indemnity basis; the court fixed pre-appointment costs for the mother and LCK at specified sums and directed further steps to resolve post-appointment costs and Registrar quantification.
23 Jun 2009

RE LHY

Citation

RE LHY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP869/2005

The court approved the proposed settlement subject to replacing solicitors-and-own-client/common fund references with indemnity basis for costs recoverable from the estate where authorized by the 9 December 2005 order; fixed pre-appointment MHO costs for the mother at HKD 431,371 and for LCK at HKD 483,300; authorized additional payment to the Official Solicitor of HKD 39,600 (in addition to HKD 128,262.13) to be paid from the HKD 19,000,000 settlement, and directed procedural steps for resolving outstanding post-appointment cost issues.
6 Sept 2006

KAN MIU WAH, PAULINE v. AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATONAL AIRLINES

Citation

KAN MIU WAH, PAULINE v. AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATONAL AIRLINES
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV142/2006

The judge was entitled to order determination of the preliminary issue whether the settlement was binding before approving the settlement; the plaintiff on hearing accepted the settlement terms thereby abandoning the challenge, so the appeal was dismissed and the directions of the judge were set aside with the matter remitted for Order 80 approval on behalf of the minor.
17 Nov 2005

TSE MAU LAN v. WANCHAI GOLDEN ASTER RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

TSE MAU LAN v. WANCHAI GOLDEN ASTER RESTAURANT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1117/2002

Leave to approve the settlement was granted and the respondent was ordered to pay costs of the whole action to be taxed on a common fund basis because the court must ensure the settlement sum is reasonable and that the mentally incapacitated applicant will not be subject to potential liability for costs; the late appointment of a next friend does not justify departing from the established practice of common fund taxation for the entire proceedings.