|
HCA 2128/2015 and
HCA 2294/2017
[2025] HKCFI 702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 2128 OF 2015
ACTION NO. 2294 OF 2017
(TRANSFERRED FROM LABOUR TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO.
LBTC 2383 OF 2017)
_________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
GREEN LIGHT MULTIPLEX CO. LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
(formerly known as GREEN LIGHT MARKETING CO.
LIMITED and GLM INTERNATIONAL LIMITED) |
|
| |
and
|
|
| |
LAM SHI YAN |
1st Defendant |
| |
HO MAN FAN |
2nd Defendant |
| |
|
(discontinued) |
(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of Master Hui dated 10 January 2018)
_________________
| Before: |
Hon H. Au-Yeung J in Chambers (Open to Public) |
| Date of Hearing: |
12 February 2025 |
| Date of Decision: |
12 February 2025 |
_________________
DECISION
_________________
1. On 16 August 2024, I handed down a Judgment by which I allowed the plaintiff’s claims against the 1st defendant in the total sum of $2,566,560.65. I also allowed the 1st defendant’s counterclaim for performance bonus in the sum of $196,520.78. I therefore ordered the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiff the net sum of $2,370,039.87.
2. The plaintiff now, by virtue of its summons filed on 2 October 2024 (“the Summons”), relies on the slip rule under Order 20 rule 11 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A, Laws of Hong Kong) (“RHC”) and seeks interest on the net sum from the date of the Writ (i.e. 14 September 2015) until date of Judgment at the rate of 1% over the HSBC best lending rate and then thereafter until the date of full payment at the Judgment rate.
3. The 1st defendant is absent today. However, since I am satisfied that he has been duly notified of the hearing today, I am of the view that it is appropriate for the hearing to proceed in his absence.
4. The said Order 20 rule 11 of the RHC provides that:
“Clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court on summons without an appeal.”
5. Interest under sections 48 and 49 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4, Laws of Hong Kong) has indeed been claimed in the Statement of Claim and referred to in paragraph 57 of the plaintiff’s closing submissions.
6. The question here is what I would have ordered if I had applied my mind to the issue of interest when I gave Judgment.
7. My answer is that if I have so applied my mind (which I have omitted to do so due to accidental slip), I would no doubt have awarded interest as sought by the plaintiff.
8. I therefore make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Summons.
9. I also make an order that the 1st defendant shall bear the plaintiff’s costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed.
|
( H. Au-Yeung )
Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Mr Byron Chiu, instructed by K. M. Lai & Li, for the plaintiff
The 1st defendant was not represented and did not appear
|