Read the full judgment text of CACV 000207/1995 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 July 1996 before Nazareth VP, Bokhary JA, Liu JA.
Civil procedure – writ – extension of validity – Order 6, rule 8(2) – two-stage approach – where plaintiff chooses not to serve writ within normal validity period – whether discretion to extend arises – whether good reason for extension must be shown before discretion arises – balance of hardship – collapse of concrete canopy at To Kwa Wan factory building on 26 November 1990 causing serious injuries and five deaths – writ issued three days before limitation expired – plaintiffs deliberately chose not to serve writ in order to serve it together with statement of claim and statement of special damages – ex parte one-year extension granted by Master – defendants' applications to discharge extension and set aside service allowed by Findlay J – whether the desire to serve the statement of claim with the writ amounts to good reason for extension – held: no discretion to extend arises unless plaintiff first establishes matters amounting to good reason for extension, or at least capable of so amounting – balance of hardship only considered if discretion arises at stage two – there is some overlap between the two stages but two-stage approach preserved – desire to serve statement of claim with writ incapable of amounting to good reason following The Birka and Kleinwort Benson (The Myrto (No. 3)) – a perfect reason not necessary but nothing short of good reason is enough – sympathy cannot supply the missing good reason – case management advantages and justice of defendants' case do not transform absence of good reason into good reason – appeals dismissed with costs to respondents on party and party basis – order nisi for costs – order for legal taxation of plaintiffs' own costs – plaintiffs left to pursue such remedy as fresh legal advisers may advise against their present legal advisers.
Legal issues: Whether discretion to extend writ arises under O.6 r.8(2) when plaintiff chooses not to serve within normal validity period
Outcome: Appeals dismissed; plaintiffs' claims left to be pursued only as fresh legal advisers may advise against their present legal advisers.