LEUNG KWONG CHIN v. MAK CHUN HUNG

DCPI 2570/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 2570 OF 2011

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  This summons was supported by the affidavit of assistant principal legal aid counsel of the Legal Aid Department. The fundamental point to support the application is laid out under paragraph 14 of the affidavit of the assistant principal legal aid counsel. It reads:

“I humbly submit that when the legal representatives of the parties signed a consent summons agreeing to the plaintiff to pay the costs of this action to the defendant incurred after 6 October 2011, they were under the mistaken belief that the Calderbank offer had the same costs consequence of a sanctioned payment and the defendant was entitled to his costs on 6 October 2011, 28 days after the Calderbank offer whilst in fact he was not.”

2.  After perusing the documents of both parties, I cannot find any evidence to support this statement.  Of course, as expected, the defendant’s solicitor did not agree to this submission.  There being no evidence to support this statement of mistaken belief by both parties, this summons support simply cannot stand.  I therefore dismiss it.