Wong Bik Fai v Dragages Hong Kong Ltd And Others

CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date28 October 2016
Judgement NumberHCPI564/2015
Subject MatterPersonal Injuries Action
HCPI564A/2015 WONG BIK FAI v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

HCPI 564/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 564 OF 2015

________________________

BETWEEN
WONG BIK FAI Plaintiff
and
DRAGAGES HONG KONG LIMITED and
CHINA HARBOUR ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED and
VSL HONG KONG LIMITED trading as
DRAGAGES–CHINA HARBOUR–VSL J.V.
Defendant

________________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Kwok SC in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 26 October 2016
Date of Decision: 26 October 2016
Date of Reasons for Decision: 28 October 2016

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________


Judgment handed down on 14 October 2016

1. On 14 October 2016, judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $196,232.09, with interest at 2% per annum on general damages from the date of writ (26 May 2015) to the date of judgment and interest on special damages at 4% per annum from the date of the accident (18 June 2013) to the date of judgment was handed down.

Order nisi on costs

2. I made an order nisi under Order 42, rule 5B(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, that the plaintiff’s costs on quantum be taxed and paid by the defendant.

Defendant’s application to vary the order nisi on costs

3. On 20 October 2016, the defendant issued a summons (“the defendant’s summons”) to vary the order nisi on costs on the ground that the plaintiff failed to do better than the sanctioned payment of $450,000.

4. On 24 October 2016, the Director of Legal Aid gave notice that the plaintiff has applied for legal aid to prosecute an appeal against the judgment dated 14 October 2016.

5. On 24 October 2016, the parties issued a consent summons to vary the order nisi on costs “subject to the Plaintiff’s appeal (if any)”.

6. It is not appropriate for a costs order to be made expressly subject to appeal and the parties were informed accordingly by letter dated 25 October 2016.

7. By letter dated 25 October 2016, Messrs Sam Fu & Co. sought to adjourn the defendant’s summons sine die with liberty to restore.

Lifting the legal aid stay

8. The defendant’s summons came before me on 26 October 2016. Mr Cao applied to lift the legal aid stay.

9. Section 15 of the Legal Aid Ordinance, Cap 91, provides that:

“ (2) Where an action has been commenced or where an appeal has been lodged in respect of any...

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