Wong Bik Ling Kitty v. Crowe Insurance Group (Hong Kong) Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT000031A/1999 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 May 1999 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Procedure — Appeal — Extension of Time — Arbitration Award — Application for Leave to Appeal filed out of statutory time limit — Whether court should condone late filing. The arbitration award was published on 17 December 1998, but the claimant did not uplift the award until 12 March 1999, delaying the defendant's knowledge of the award. The defendant sought leave to appeal on 17 March 1999, beyond the 21-day limit. The court found that the defendant's failure to apply within time was not so unreasonable as to refuse condonation, considering that refusing the extension would allow a probably incorrect award to stand. Exercising judicial discretion, the court allowed the late filing and extended the time to apply for leave to appeal. However, on subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal (CACV000266/1999), this extension decision was overturned.
Legal issues: Extension of time for application for leave to appeal
Outcome: The High Court condoned the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
|
HCCT000031A/1999 1999, No. CT 30 & 31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Coram: The Hon Mr Justice Findlay, in Chambers Date of hearing: 26 April 1999 Date of handing down of judgment: 4 May 1999 ___________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT ___________________________________ 1. After I had handed down my judgment in this matter on 30 April 1999, I realised that I had not included in it my decision and reasons on the point raised by Mr Tracy that the application for leave to appeal was out of time. While considering the matter, I had decided this point, but I omitted to deal with it in my written judgment. I now remedy this. 2. Mr Tracy says that the arbitrator published his award on 17 December 1998, but the application for leave to appeal was not made until 17 March 1999; well outside the 21 day time limit. It is so that the arbitrator made known to the parties that his award was ready on 17 December 1998, and it has been accepted for a long time that this is the date of publication of the award. The plaintiff was the claimant in the arbitration, and, in the ordinary course of events, one would expect the claimant to do what is necessary to uplift the award. The claimant did not do so until 12 March 1999. Only then were the parties able to know what the arbitrator had decided, and be in a position to consider the merits of his decision. Of course, the defendant could have uplifted the award itself, but that would not be usual for obvious reasons; the defendant had no expectation of an award in its favour, other than in relation to costs, and, therefore, no pressing reason to obtain the award so that it could enforce it. I have already found that the defendant has succeeded in showing that it is likely that the arbitrator was wrong in his construction of the policy. To refuse to allow the defendant to proceed with an appeal would mean that the plaintiff will keep an award that, probably, she should not have obtained. That would not be just. The conclusion to be drawn from these circumstances is that, although the defendant might have put itself in a position to be able to apply for leave within the time limit, its failure to do so was not so unreasonable as to justify a refusal to condone the late filing of the application for leave where the result of this would be to allow an award that is probably wrong to remain undisturbed. 3. In these circumstances, I exercise my discretion to condone the late filing of the application.
Representation: Mr MP Tracy, instructed by Messrs Lousich & Co, for the plaintiff. Mr Neal Clough, instructed by Messrs Henry HC Wong & Co, for the defendant.
|