Read the full judgment text of FACV 6/2019 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 20 December 2019 before 馬道立, 李義, 霍兆剛, 司徒敬, 麥嘉琳.
Civil procedure – statutory interpretation – costs jurisdiction – settlement – Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board – Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance (Cap 365) ss.20B(3), 25A, 29 – High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) s.52A – plaintiff injured renovation worker obtained judgment for HK$602,380 under Employees Compensation Ordinance and HK$2,110,927 in common law damages against uninsured second defendant; Board joined proceedings to protect fund – plaintiff and Board settled plaintiff's potential assistance payment claim for HK$1.42M at start of common law trial – trial judge made no costs order between plaintiff and Board – whether s.20B(3) strips court of costs jurisdiction – proper construction requires reading ss.20A, 20B together so s.20B(3) limits assistance payment amount, not costs jurisdiction – High Court Ordinance s.52A confers general costs power – s.29 contemplates Board making written settlement offers with costs consequences for refusal, confirming costs jurisdiction – Board's role as statutory trustee and filter against fraudulent or exaggerated claims means costs-following-event is not appropriate starting point – starting point should be no costs order, with wide discretion to depart in exceptional cases – whether Board has power to settle potential assistance payment claims before judgment or assessment – s.28(1) expressly empowers settlement of ECO claims; no express equivalent for common law claims after 2002 amendments – s.29 necessarily implies settlement power as it presupposes Board's authority to make settlement offers with costs consequences – consistent with policy of preserving fund and avoiding erosion of assistance payments by legal costs – settlement is binding contractual disposition of claim, operating as alternative to statutory ss.20A-20B regime, and is not affected by amount of any subsequent judgment against employer – appeal dismissed – no costs order made – respondent's costs to be assessed under Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction and approach to costs orders against the Board when joined as a party · Board's power to enter binding settlements of potential assistance payment claims
Outcome: Appeal unanimously dismissed. No costs order made against the Board; the respondent's costs to be assessed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
Cited by 8 cases · Cites 5 cases