Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Leung Hoi Wai v Po Leung Kuk

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date11 July 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] HKCFI 1620
Year2018
Judgement NumberHCPI999/2015
Subject MatterPersonal Injuries Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCPI999A/2015 LEUNG HOI WAI v. PO LEUNG KUK

HCPI 999/2015

[2018] HKCFI 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 999 OF 2015

-------------------------

BETWEEN
LEUNG HOI WAI (梁凱慧) Plaintiff
and
PO LEUNG KUK Defendant

-------------------------

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee (paper disposal)

Date of Written submissions: 21 April 2018 (the plaintiff) 17 & 24 April 2018 (the defendant)

Date of Decision: 11 July 2018

------------------------

DECISION

------------------------


Introduction

1. This court handed down a judgment dated 14 February 2018 after trial and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff, Madam Leung, with costs to the defendant, Po Leung Kuk (“PLK”). This is an application by PLK by summons dated 28 February 2018 (“the Summons”) to vary the costs order nisi on account of a sanctioned payment made on 27 November 2015 (“the Sanctioned Payment”).

2. The parties agree that there is only one controversial matter in the Summons and it should be dealt with by way of paper disposal. This court agrees to this course.

3. It is still necessary to see what the parties have agreed on the Summons. Their agreement is contained in their joint letter dated 26 March 2018 and includes:

(a) Madam Leung do pay PLK’s costs of this action, including all costs reserved, on a party and party basis up to and including 28 December 2015, to be taxed if not agreed.

(b) Madam Leung do pay PLK’s costs of this action, including all costs reserved, on an indemnity basis from 29 December 2015, to be taxed if not agreed.

(c) The Sanctioned Payment be paid out of the court together with interest to PLK forthwith through its solicitors.

(d) Costs of the application be paid by Madam Leung to PLK on an indemnity basis at High Court scale, to be taxed if not agreed.

(e) Madam Leung’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

4. Given the agreement, this court shall make an order in the foregoing terms.

5. The only controversy concerns the demand of PLK for enhanced interest on indemnity costs at a rate of 9% per annum from 29 December 2015 until 14 February 2018 (“the Period”). There is no dispute that in light of the judgment, the court’s discretion under O.22 r.23, Rules of the High Court, is triggered. Further, both Mr Ho, for PLK, and Mr Shum for Madam Leung, rely on Golden Eagle International (Group) Ltd v GR Investment Holdings Ltd [2010] 3 HKLRD 273 for the guiding principles as to how this court’s discretion should be exercised in ordering enhanced interest.

6. Mr Ho invites this court to fix the interest at 9% per annum whereas Mr Shum submits that the appropriate rate for enhanced interest should be 4.5% covering the Period.

7. In the Golden Eagle case, after reviewing the English authorities, Johnson Lam J (as he then was) in his consideration of the enhanced interest had this to say (§§18-19),

“18. I propose to adopt a similar but modified approach here. There is no evidence of actual payment of costs by the Defendant. In principle the Plaintiff should pay the Defendant interest on the costs incurred after 1 February 2010 running from the date when the works were done respectively. However, it would be a complicated process if each item of work were to carry interest from a different date. To simplify the process, I shall borrow a well-established approach in working out interest for special damages in personal injuries litigation. I...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT