8 Mar 2019
WU KIN HO v. WONG KONG HOP KENNETH
- Citation
- [2019] HKDC 324
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCPI2469/2014
Leave to appeal refused because on the facts the Second Sanctioned Offer was intended to and did supersede the First, the Second contained impermissible terms as to costs rendering no valid sanctioned offer available under O 22, the plaintiff failed to disclose the Second Sanctioned Offer in the variation application thereby justifying indemnity costs against the plaintiff, and O 22 is a self-contained code displacing reliance on O 62 in this context.