Chan Wang v. Siu Hock Kin t/a Mee Kwong Co

DCEC000619/2002

DCEC619/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 619 OF 2002

___________________

___________________

Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 May 2003

Date of Ruling: 9 May 2003

__________________

R U L I N G

__________________

1.This all goes back, in my view, to the rather unusual wording that was employed by the respondents in admitting liability in this matter. They did so because, I have no doubt, they had in mind the potential involvement of the alleged tortfeasor to whom they would be looking to to get back any compensation that they were to pay to the applicant under the provisions in the relevant sections of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance.

2.Once the applicant's solicitors saw this wording they, not surprisingly, wanted to find out what this all entailed so there was correspondence between the two solicitors who are highly experienced in this type of litigation. The matter was then delayed because of course the applicant's solicitors needed to take instructions from the applicant and the Legal Aid authorities.

3.The first date that really matters in my judgment is 30 January this year when it became clear that the form of wording was acceptable to the applicant and they were in a position to sign up to an order in those terms.

4.But soon after that there was a letter from the respondent's solicitors on 5 February to the effect that they would not mind if this application for employees' compensation was stayed or at least adjourned to see if some sort of global settlement could be arrived at involving the alleged tortfeasor.

5.It then all went rather quiet on paper because the next communication is one dated 27 March from the applicant's solicitors and they indicated then that they would have to bring the matter to court.

6.So the issue now really is when should the guillotine actually fall on this order for costs. I suppose Miss Chan says she would like 24 October, but I daresay she would not particularly object if 30 January were to be the cut-off date. Miss Kwan has explained her difficulties.

7.I take the view that I should approach this in a rather robust way on this occasion. It is all going to come out in the wash, I suspect, when these costs need to be taxed and on taxation the master can decide what was genuinely expended on the issue of liability and what really was quantum after the agreement was arrived at on 30 January.

8.So I am going to make an order in terms of this particular summons, the effect of it being that the applicant will have his costs of this application up to and including the hearing today. So that is the order that I am going to make. (Discussion re Legal Aid Taxation and directions)

9.1, 2, 3 and 4 in the form of the pro forma. (Discussion re costs)

10.Costs in the cause. Legal Aid Taxation.

Representation:

Ms C Kwan, of Messrs Ip, Kwan & Co., assigned by the Legal Aid Department, for the Applicant

Ms Anita Chan, of Messrs Y T Chan & Co., for the Respondent