Read the full judgment text of CAMP 293/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 August 2020 before 關淑馨 副庭長, 袁家寧 法官.
Civil procedure – appeal – leave to appeal – costs assessment – Court of Appeal – District Court Ordinance (Cap 336) s.63, s.63A – District Court Rules (Cap 336H) O.58 r.2(4A), (5), (6); O.52 r.2 – High Court Rules (Cap 4A) O.1A r.1, O.59 r.2A, O.41A r.9, O.52 r.2 – Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap 282) s.10, s.48 – Employment Ordinance (Cap 57) s.32K, s.32I – Practice Direction para. 5 – workplace injury on 24 August 2016 – dismissal in October 2016 – Labour Tribunal claim for unreasonable dismissal stood over pending District Court determination of injury – respondent initially denied injury in DCEC 2580/2017 but conceded at trial – trial judge dismissed injury claim as s.10 compensation already paid through salary but later awarded costs against respondent for unreasonable conduct in denying the injury – three costs assessment judgments: HK$5,795, HK$8,000, and HK$2,000 – application to extend time and for leave to appeal against costs assessments dismissed as no reasonable prospect of success and costs assessments are discretionary – whether committal order application should be brought in Court of Appeal held should be brought in District Court under O.52 r.2 of the District Court Rules – whether single omnibus application for leave to appeal against all District Court judgments permissible held no, abuse of process, applicant must first apply to lower court – Singh Arjun v Secretary for Justice [2014] 2 HKLRD 678 and Kidde China Limited v Etech Fire Limited, HCMP 1673/2014 followed – unfounded allegations of bias against trial judge rejected – all three applications dismissed – costs of Application (1) summarily assessed at HK$12,271 on party-and-party basis – no costs order on Applications (2) and (3).
Legal issues: Whether to extend time and grant leave to appeal against costs assessment judgments in DCEC 2580/2017 · Whether committal order application should be brought in the Court of Appeal · Whether a single application for leave to appeal against all District Court judgments is permissible
Outcome: All three summons applications filed by the applicant on 19 November 2019 were dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of Application (1) on a party-and-party basis, summarily assessed at HK$12,271 (reduced from the HK$20,771 claimed). No costs orders were made in respect of Applications (2) and (3). The applicant was also ordered not to seek reconsideration of these applications at an inter partes hearing under O.59 r.2A(7) of the High Court Rules.
Cited by 18 cases · Cites 7 cases