Chui Chi Yue v. A.S. Watson & Co Ltd.

DCEC000724/2000

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION CASE NO. 724 OF 2000

Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 5 February 2001

___________________

R U L I N G

___________________

1. In this matter the applicant, Mr Chui Chi-yue, seeks compensation from the respondents under various sections of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance by an application dated 14 August of last year.

2. The accident which gives rise to his application took place on 8 May 1997 and from that chronology one can see that the application itself is one year and three months out of time and so he has to apply now for leave to bring the application, notwithstanding the fact that it is out of time.

3. In order to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate that he has a reasonable excuse for having delayed in making the application which is required to be made within two years of the date of the accident.

4. The history of it, as best as I can make out from his affirmation and from what he has told me this morning, is that he initially applied for Legal Aid, although he has not been able to tell me precisely when although he has indicated in his affirmation that he applied to them in February 2000 which would, in fact, be out of time. I do not know whether he also applied within the two year period. At all events, nothing appears to have happened within the two year period itself.

5. The Labour Department, clearly seized of this matter on his behalf and on 31 January of last year, they issued a Certificate of Compensation in the sum of $164,908.83 and that amount has been paid by the respondents.

6. On their behalf, it is submitted by Mr Lau that there is simply no explanation here on behalf of the applicant as to why he should have delayed. Mr Lau relies on cases which show that a lack of understanding on behalf of the applicant as to his legal rights is not a reasonable excuse and, of course, that is right.

7. At the same time, the court has to be sympathetic to applicants in the position of Mr Chui here. Many of them come before the court with absolutely no knowledge of their legal rights. Frequently these are men and women with low education and one is sympathetic. At the same time, of course, one has to be fair to respondents as well.

8. In this matter, I am afraid to say that Mr Chui, even making every allowance for his situation, has simply not begun to demonstrate any reasonable excuse or reasonable cause for having delayed for such a period. This is not just a short delay. It is a delay for well over a year after the expiry of the limitation period. The Labour Department have issued their Certificate of Assessment. The respondents, very properly, have paid out, and for my part I think it would be wrong now to entertain this application against a background of unexplained delay, and rather serious delay, and so I decline to extend time and accordingly, the application itself must stand dismissed.

9. Costs to the respondent.

Representation:

Present: Applicant, in person

Mr J Lau, of Clyde & Co., for the Respondent