Read the full judgment text of HCCT 18/2010 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 August 2012 before Mr Recorder A. Ho, SC in Chambers.
Costs — Sanctioned payment regime under Order 22, rule 23 — Defendant made Sanctioned Payment of $480,000 which plaintiff failed to accept within 28 days — Plaintiff subsequently obtained judgment less than Sanctioned Payment — Whether plaintiff liable for costs consequences under rule 23 — Whether indemnity costs permitted — Whether interest on costs awarded — Plaintiff’s submissions on pending expert report, pleading reformulation, and granite tile costs dispute rejected — Court held plaintiff ought to have assessed the offer at time and non-acceptance engages costs sanctions unless unjust — No justified basis found to refuse sanction costs or remission — Plaintiff awarded costs incurred resisting counterclaim up to 3 February 2010 — Defendant awarded indemnity costs after that date and interest on same — Overall plaintiff ordered to pay defendant costs of application — The judgment sets out detailed principles on application and effect of sanctioned payments and the obligation of parties to assess offers promptly. The costs regime aims to promote settlement and fairness to successful parties rather than penalize losing parties.
Legal issues: Costs consequences of failure to obtain judgment better than Sanctioned Payment · Entitlement to bear costs on indemnity basis after 3 February 2010 · Interest entitlement on costs after 3 February 2010 · Plaintiff’s entitlement to costs resisting counterclaim before 3 February 2010
Outcome: Plaintiff failed to obtain better judgment than Sanctioned Payment; costs sanctions ordered against plaintiff accordingly
Cited by 8 cases