Than Wai v. Kong Chun Sing t/a Hop Hing Saw Mill
Read the full judgment text of DCEC 263/2000 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 5 December 2001.
1. There is no dispute about the various applicants here having been right to bring in Fortune Navigation SA as 1st respondent in these applications for employees' compensation. The only point that arises today is how that company is to be served.
|
DCEC000263/2000 DCEC262-275&438/2000&222/2001 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 262 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 263 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 264 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 265 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 266 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 267 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 268 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 269 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 270 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 271 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 272 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 273 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 274 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 275 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 438 OF 2000
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 222 OF 2001
Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Court Date of Judgment: 5 December 2001 ______________________ R U L I N G ______________________ 1.There is no dispute about the various applicants here having been right to bring in Fortune Navigation SA as 1st respondent in these applications for employees' compensation. The only point that arises today is how that company is to be served. 2.It is, of course, a company registered at Monrovia, Liberia. Mr Kerry, who appears on behalf of all these applicants, submits that it would be good service to serve Fortune Navigation at their offices in Hong Kong and also by way of personal service on Mr Kong who is a director of that company. As against that, Mr Lau says no, that this is not the right route to take. First of all, they should be served at their offices in Liberia and an application should be made for an order for substituted service by serving at the address in Hong Kong and on their director. It seems to me that this would not be necessary in these circumstances. After all, what underlies these rules of service is the necessity to bring to the notice of a respondent or a defendant the proceedings that are being brought against them. 3.By doing what is proposed by Mr Kerry, that would be achieved and is, in my view, within the rules. So I will allow service in the way that Mr Kerry has indicated. 4.The respondents should have the costs of the amendment but the costs of today will be costs in the cause.
Representation: Present: Mr Christopher Kerry, of Crump & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicants Mr Peter Lau, of Ince & Co., for the Respondent |