Gurung Lachhaman v. Gurung Chandra Prakash t/a Metro-construction Co Advance Specialist Treatment Engineering Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 672/2008 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 March 2010.
1. At the hearing I held it is reasonable for the Defendants not to proceed further with mediation and they be not at risk of any adverse costs order.
Cites 1 case
|
HCPI 672/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 672 OF 2008 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 18 March 2010 Date of Decision: 18 March 2010 Date of reasons for Decision: 22 March 2010 ________________________________ REASONS FOR DECISION ________________________________ 1.At the hearing I held it is reasonable for the Defendants not to proceed further with mediation and they be not at risk of any adverse costs order. 2.The Plaintiff had an accident at work and complained of lower back pain. He alleged inability to return to the pre-accident job and had been unemployed. 3.Liability had been admitted and the case was set down for assessment in the Running List. 4.Upon discharge of Legal Aid, the Defendants applied for transfer to the Fixture List. 5.At the hearing on 28 October 2009, I explained to the Plaintiff the availability of the New Insurance Mediation Pilot Scheme (“NIMPS”) sponsored by the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers and administered by the Hong Kong Mediation Council (the mediation arm of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre). Under NIMPS, the mediator is paid for by the fund, and the unrepresented litigant may also receive an allowance for independent legal advice and medical report, if necessary. The Plaintiff indicated willingness to try NIMPS. 6.Thereafter, the Plaintiff reneged on his indication and refused to mediate. 7.Another hearing was held on 17 December 2009 and further explanation was given to the Plaintiff. He again indicated willingness to try NIMPS. 8.Since then, the parties had a pre-mediation meeting with the mediator. However, the Plaintiff requested that further MRI be conducted and the mediation be postponed. 9.At this hearing, the Plaintiff applied for further MRI report. However, he is unable to show any medical advice to support the necessity to reopen the medical evidence. 10.In the event, I refused MRI examination and ordered there be no further medical evidence without leave of the Court, and the case be set down for assessment before a Master with 2 days reserved, and that the Defendants be not at risk of any adverse costs order for not proceeding further with mediation. There is of course no such cover against costs for the Plaintiff. 11.On 17 December 2009, I ordered in the event that the Plaintiff changed his mind again and refuse to enter into mediation, he shall pay the costs of that hearing to the Defendants summary assessed at $3,000. 12.Although the Plaintiff did see the mediator, in fact he was not willing to enter into mediation in setting the condition of MRI examination. Now that MRI examination is refused, I make the order nisi that he should bear the costs. 13.By the same token, the Plaintiff should pay the costs nisi of this hearing, summary assessed at $2,000. 14.The order nisi will be made absolute unless the Plaintiff makes the application to vary it within 14 days. 15.I commend the Defendants’ efforts in attempting mediation.
The Plaintiff in person, present Ms K H Teh, of Messrs Deacons, for the Defendants |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCPI 672/2008