Momin Lok v. Hospital Authority
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 981/2014 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 31 July 2020.
1. On 4 June 2020, I handed down my judgment after the trial of the preliminary issue of limitations in this action. I also directed the parties to exchange written submissions on the issue of costs, including any outstanding and reserved costs, and to exchange written submissions in reply. This is my ruling as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCPI 981/2014 [2020] HKCFI 1840 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 981 OF 2014 __________________________ BETWEEN
__________________________
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 4 June 2020, I handed down my judgment after the trial of the preliminary issue of limitations in this action. I also directed the parties to exchange written submissions on the issue of costs, including any outstanding and reserved costs, and to exchange written submissions in reply. This is my ruling as to costs. 2.The defendant’s submissions included a helpful chronology and table of outstanding and reserved costs. I replicate the same below:
3.The outstanding and reserved costs cover not only the costs of the trial of the preliminary issue but also the costs of interlocutory proceedings incurred between 18 May 2018, when the trial was adjourned, and 26 September 2019, when the trial resumed and was concluded. These interlocutory costs have been identified in rows 7-11, 13, 15, and 19. 4.I have carefully considered the parties’ submissions on these interlocutory costs. I am not persuaded that I ought to depart from the principle that costs should follow the event. I order that the costs of:
be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in any event, to be taxed, if not agreed. Insofar as it may be necessary to do so in order to give effect to the order that I am now making, I vary the scope of §9 of my order dated 11 June 2019. §9 states that the costs of and incidental to the [plaintiff’s] summons [of 7 May 2019] be in the cause of the preliminary trial. I vary §9 by directing that the order therein is not to apply to the plaintiff’s application, by the said summons, to revoke my order for cross-examination and for leave to give evidence by video link. I further order that the plaintiff’s own costs in respect of these matters be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. 5.It is common ground that the plaintiff succeeded on the limitations issue and should be awarded the costs of the trial of that issue, including the costs of the plaintiff’s limitations summons; and that the plaintiff’s own costs be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. Those costs would include the reserved costs identified in the table above on rows 2 and 4, the costs ordered to be in the cause identified in row 3, and the costs of the further directions in respect of the resumption of the trial of the preliminary issue identified in row 17. 6.However, the defendant submits that the defendant should not be required to bear the plaintiff’s costs, or its own costs, incurred by the plaintiff’s application on the afternoon of 18 May 2018 to adduce additional evidence, if she wished to do so; and the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment required by the plaintiff in order to do so (identified in rows 4 and 20). 7.The following exchange took place between the defendant’s counsel and myself on the afternoon of 18 May 2018:
8.I accept the defendant’s submissions in respect of the costs of the hearing on the afternoon of 18 May 2018. The hearing that afternoon concluded at 3:56 pm. I order that the costs of the hearing on the afternoon of 18 May 2018 from 2:30 pm to 3:56 pm be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in any event, to be taxed, if not agreed; and that the plaintiff’s own costs in respect of the said hearing be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. However, I do not accept the defendant’s submissions that the costs of and occasioned by the adjournment to enable the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence be awarded to the defendant. The additional evidence that was adduced was relevant to the matters in issue. If that evidence had been adduced at the outset, it is likely that the hearing would have lasted three days instead of two. Accordingly, the costs of the hearing that took place on the third day of the preliminary trial on 26 September 2019 was not an additional cost occasioned by the late application to adduce relevant evidence. 9.The plaintiff submits, on the other hand, that she was not only entitled to the costs of the preliminary trial but also to the costs of the action incurred up to the date of my judgment on 4 June 2020; and that such costs should be paid forthwith. I see no merit whatsoever in the submissions. 10.I order that the costs of the trial of the preliminary issue, including the costs of the plaintiff’s limitations summons, be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in any event, to be taxed if not agreed; and that the plaintiff’s own costs be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. 11.Finally, I make an order that the costs of this application be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in any event, to be taxed, if not agreed; and that the plaintiff’s own costs be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. 12.I further order that the costs I have ordered in favour of the plaintiff be set off against the costs I have ordered in favour of the defendant.
Messrs Littlewoods, assigned by Director of Legal Aid, for the plaintiff Mr Nigel Kat SC, instructed by Deacons, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 981/2014