Mary Jane Dandoy Dela Torre v. Lam Ka Wai Grace

DCEC 147/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 147 OF 2012

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.In this case, I dismissed the claim by the applicant (“DT”) against the respondent (“Lam”) for employees’ compensation after trial. Judgment was handed down on 29 January 2013. Following that event, I made a nisi order that except for Lam’s costs of obtaining and adducing surveillance evidence, DT shall pay the costs of the application to Lam, including any costs reserved. Costs shall be taxed, if not agreed, with certificate for counsel. In the absence of application within 14 days to vary, the costs order shall become absolute.

2.By summons dated 15 February 2013, DT applied to vary the nisi costs order out of time.  After hearing, I dismissed the same on 23 April 2013.  In the written decision of that day, I explained the exercise of discretion as to costs and the application of O.62, rr.3 and 5 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap 336.  I shall not repeat here.

3.DT intends to appeal my decision on 23 April 2013.  There has never been appeal against my judgment in respect of liability in the present case.  Instead of an appeal as of right pursuant to section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282, appeal on costs only needs leave of the court.  By summons dated 15 May 2013, DT applies for leave.

4.The appellant court seldom interferes with the exercise of discretion as to costs below unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised under a misapprehension of the law or facts; or that the decision resulted from the court below having taking into account irrelevant matters; or that no reasonable court would have come to such decision on costs: see generally Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2013 (Vol.1) at 59/0/54.

5.In support of her present application, DT essentially repeats what she put forward during her last application to vary the nisi costs order.  In court, she stressed that she has no money to pay; and that she does not know the law.  She is not able to suggest any error in my exercise of discretion as to costs.

6.I therefore refuse leave; and dismiss the application with costs to Lam, to be taxed, if not agreed.