Sandhu Jatinder Singh v. Ma Shiu Ming and Another

DCPI 2647/2022

[2025] HKDC 1205

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 2647 OF 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.The assessment hearing of this personal injuries action was heard before this Court on 23 and 25 July 2024, and the Judgment handed down on 27 August 2024 (“Judgment”). 

2.The 2^nd Defendant (“D2”)  took out a summons on 6 September 2024 under O 22 rr 8 & 23 of the Rules of the District Court (“RDC”)  to vary the costs order nisi thereof.  The summons was heard on 11 November 2024 and my Decision varying the costs order nisi was handed down on 11 December 2024 (“Decision”).

3.By a summons filed on 7 May 2025 (“Summons”)  together with an affirmation in support (“Affm”), the Plaintiff (“P”)  seeks leave to appeal out of time the Decision (“Appeal”)  under O 58 r 2(4)(c)  of the RDC.  On the same date, P filed a Notice to Act in Person.

4.It transpired that the P did not serve the Summons on both Defendants.  D2 only came to know about the Summons on 11 July 2025 afternoon upon the court’s enquiry. The 1^st Defendant (“D1”)  was absent at today’s hearing.  As my Decision only concerns P and D2 and upon the submission of D2 that D1 had all along been absent from these proceedings, I consider it appropriate to proceed the hearing in the absence of D1.  D2, despite the last minute notice of the Summons, did not seek to adjourn today’s hearing so as to avoid wasting further time and costs.

THE ISSUES

5.Regarding the Appeal, this Court would consider whether leave should be granted to P to appeal against the Decision on costs out of time, the deadline being within 14 days from the date of the Decision.

6.The guidelines are set out in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, commentary §59/4/9, which states:-

“It is entirely in the discretion of the court to grant or refuse an extension of time. The factors which are normally taken into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time for serving a notice of appeal are: (1)  the length of the delay; (2)  the reasons for the delay; (3)  the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing is extended; and (4)  the degree of prejudice to the potential respondent if the application is granted;”

7.P in his Affm sets out the following reasons for delay:-

(i)  He took time to seek legal advice from different solicitors and counsel;

(ii)  He, being not a native Cantonese speaker, faced difficulties arranging interpretation and meeting these legal advisers; and

(iii)   He required time to ask his solicitors Messrs MCA Lai Solicitors LLP (“MCAL”)  to pass the papers and all documents to the legal advisers.

8.P had all along been represented by MCAL in this action until 7 May 2025. I do not accept the reasons put forward for the delay.

9.In any event, even if I granted time extension for P to proceed the Appeal, he has not shown any “real prospect of success of the appeal”, or indeed any prospect of success.  He repeatedly submitted at the hearing that this Court should have added the property damage of $9,000 to the judgment sum in considering adequacy of the sanctioned payments.

10.This argument was put forward by his counsel at the last hearing of D2’s application for variation of costs order nisi.  It has been fully considered by this Court and dealt with in §§28 to 42 of the Decision.  The argument cannot sustain and does not justify granting of leave to appeal. 

CONCLUSION

11.There is no legal basis for the Appeal.  P’s application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.

COSTS

12.Costs should follow the event.  Having heard the submissions on costs of P and D2, I agree with D2 and consider that summary assessment is appropriate in accordance with O62 r 9A(1)(a)  of the RDC.

13.I order that P do pay D2 the costs of the Appeal, summarily assessed at $5,000, to be paid within 28 days from the date hereof.

The Plaintiff, appearing in person

The 1^st Defendant, acting in person and did not appear

Ms. Veronica Lee of Messrs Winnie Leung & Co, for the 2^nd Defendant