Read the full judgment text of HCPI 62/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 30 April 2018 before Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng.
Civil procedure – sanctioned payment – Order 22 rule 23 of the Rules of the High Court – whether plaintiff obtained a judgment better than the sanctioned payment – Parents Action and Bosco Action arising from medical negligence – psychiatric injury to Parents – single cause of action in respect of the Incident – whether addition of FDH expenses claim by transfer from Bosco Action and update of incurred medical expenses amounted to new causes of action – application of Berezovsky v Abramovich and Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Ltd v Olivia Lee Sin Mei – distinction from Tingay v Harris and Ng Pok Leung v Ng Pok Man – update of incurred medical expenses as natural conversion of future to incurred expenses through passage of time – no new cause of action – judgment sum exceeded Parents Funds by approximately $100,000, not di minimus – Order 22 rule 23 of the RHC held inapplicable – inherent jurisdiction could not assist in disallowing interest awarded under final Judgment – Order 62 rule 5 of the RHC – whether Parents Costs Order Nisi should be varied to deprive Parents of costs and order them to pay Doctor's costs after 27 February 2012 – date-based cut-off inconsistent with issue-based approach under Elgindata principles – Elgindata principle (iv) survives the CJR under Order 62 rule 7(1) – successful party may only be ordered to pay unsuccessful party's costs for issues raised improperly or unnecessarily – burden on Doctor to displace general rule that costs follow event – Parents' claims not extravagantly or fraudulently exaggerated – Parents had to bring claims to 2nd Trial to secure awards that bettered Doctor's pleaded case – Doctor Strike Out Costs Application as late application with no merit – Doctor failed on all aspects – withdrawal of application did not absolve Doctor of costs – Parents Costs Order Nisi and costs order nisi in paragraph 18 of the Reasons made absolute – Doctor to pay Parents' costs of Time Summons, Summons, Doctor Strike Out Costs Application, and withdrawal of Doctor Strike Out Costs Application on High Court scale and party-and-party basis, with Parents' own costs taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations – Doctor's application for indemnity costs and enhanced interest at 10%pa above judgment rate refused.
Legal issues: Whether Order 22 rule 23 of the RHC applies where the Plaintiffs obtained a judgment better than the sanctioned payment · Whether addition of the FDH expenses and excess medical expenses claims amounted to new causes of action · Whether the Doctor could invoke inherent jurisdiction to displace the Parents Costs Order Nisi · Whether the Doctor could vary the Parents Costs Order Nisi under Order 62 rule 5 of the RHC · Whether the Parents should pay the Doctor's costs of the Doctor Strike Out Costs Application and its withdrawal
Outcome: The Doctor's application by the Summons in the Parents Action failed. The Parents Costs Order Nisi and the costs order nisi in paragraph 18 of the Reasons were made absolute. The Doctor was ordered to pay the Parents' costs of the Time Summons and the Summons on High Court scale and party-and-party basis.
Cited by 22 cases · Cites 2 cases