Read the full judgment text of CACV 262/2014 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 23 January 2015 before Lam VP, Kwan JA.
Civil procedure – interlocutory application – interim payment – employee compensation – sanctioned payment – Order 22 Rule 25(2) – without prejudice protection – Calderbank offer – statutory presumption under s.10(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance – appeal – recusal – whether Rule 25(2) prohibits disclosure of a sanctioned payment in interlocutory proceedings – held, the rule does not on its terms apply to interlocutory proceedings such as interim payment applications – whether the common law nevertheless restricts such disclosure – held, yes, the without-prejudice protection extends to sanctioned payments, and disclosure is permissible only where it will not cause embarrassment to the court or unfair prejudice to a party – whether the proceedings below should be set aside for improper disclosure – held, yes, where the judge did not explicitly dispel the perception of influence and her award tracked the Calderbank offer and the sanctioned payment amount – whether s.10(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance creates a rebuttable presumption of temporary incapacity – held, yes, and the burden lies on the employer to rebut it – applicant's claim of $170,393.33 supported by 439 days of sick leave certificates for post-concussion syndrome – respondent adduced no evidence to displace the presumption and did not obtain an independent medical examination – proper approach to interim payment assessment – broad estimate of likely damages adjusted for plaintiff's ability to repay and defendant's potential hardship – appeal allowed – interim payment increased from $20,000 to $80,000 – respondent ordered to pay applicant's costs here and below.
Legal issues: Applicability of Order 22 Rule 25(2) to interlocutory proceedings · Common law restriction on disclosure of sanctioned payments in interlocutory proceedings · Whether the lower court decision should be set aside due to improper disclosure · Effect of s.10(2) of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance on sick leave certificates · Proper amount of interim payment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; the decision of the deputy district judge set aside and the application determined afresh by the Court of Appeal.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases