Ng Sui Leong v. The Incorporated Owners of Phase One of Sui Ying Industrial Building
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 381/2001 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 19 September 2001.
1. This is a case where although the application for compensation is some way out of time, I think there is a very good reason why the Applicant was persuaded to, or at least did not make the application in time. He was advised to hold off by the Respondent's insurers who were telling him that there was some prospect of the matter being settled before the matter came to court and, quite rightly, Mr Lam who appears for the Respondents, does not resist the application.
|
DCEC000381/2001 DCEC381/2001 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 381 OF 2001
Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Court Date: 19 September 2001 ___________________ R U L I N G ___________________ 1.This is a case where although the application for compensation is some way out of time, I think there is a very good reason why the Applicant was persuaded to, or at least did not make the application in time. He was advised to hold off by the Respondent's insurers who were telling him that there was some prospect of the matter being settled before the matter came to court and, quite rightly, Mr Lam who appears for the Respondents, does not resist the application. 2.I think reasonable excuse is made out here, so I will give leave under section 14(4). So the court will now hear and determine the application, notwithstanding the expiry of the two year limitation period. 3.The only issue between the parties relates to costs. Mr Chan on behalf of the Applicant submits the appropriate order is costs in the cause. Mr Lam for the Respondents, says no order as to costs. The way Mr Lam puts the matter is this: that although there may have been good reason why the Applicant who was persuaded to wait and not bring his application within time, there was in fact nothing to stop him from doing so, so he has put himself in a position of having to come to court to ask for leave which he has succeeded in obtaining. I think the fair order in such circumstances is that each party should bear their own costs. So no order as to costs on that summons with Legal Aid taxation of the Applicant's costs. 4.I will give directions: 21 days to file Answer and List of earnings; adjourned sine die; liberty to restore; costs in the cause; Legal Aid taxation.
Representation: Present: Mr Kevin Chan, of Messrs Tsang, Chan & woo, for the Applicant Mr Y Y Lam, of Messrs Y C Lee, Pang & Kwok, for the Respondent |