LAU SEK YU DAVID v. CITYBUS LTD

LAU SEK YU DAVID v. CITYBUS LTD

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not properly apply for an extension of time under section 18(2) and therefore could not be granted an appeal out of time; alternatively, even if treated as an application for extension, the inexcusable delay of over a year, unconvincing explanation and clear prejudice to the respondent warranted refusal; on the merits medical evidence establishes the applicant's back pain was due to degenerative PID not the employment accident, so claims under sections 9 and 10 fail; section 10(2)'s presumption is rebuttable and section 10(5) and 10A do not assist; amounts already paid exceed any hypothetical award, so no further compensation payable.

Citation
LAU SEK YU DAVID v. CITYBUS LTD
Parties
Employee/applicant: Mr Lau; Employer/respondent: Respondent
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2004
Case Number
DCEC1031/2002
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Ordinance Appeal and Compensation Claim / District Court Application for Appeal Out of Time and Substantive Compensation Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Appeal Out of Time, Extension of Time, Periodical Payments, Causation, Quantum, Prejudice Due to Delay
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Workers' Compensation Civil Procedure Employees Compensation Ordinance Appeal Out of Time Extension of Time Periodical Payments Causation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Lau

Employee/applicant

Respondent

Employer/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Ordinance Appeal and Compensation Claim / District Court Application for Appeal Out of Time and Substantive Compensation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning and availability of an extension of time to appeal under section 18(2) E.C.O.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant properly sought an extension of time and whether delay is excusable
  3. 3 Prejudice to respondent from delay and impact on relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant did not properly apply for an extension of time under section 18(2) and therefore could not be granted an appeal out of time; alternatively, even if treated as an application for extension, the inexcusable delay of over a year, unconvincing explanation and clear prejudice to the respondent warranted refusal; on the merits medical evidence establishes the applicant's back pain was due to degenerative PID not the employment accident, so claims under sections 9 and 10 fail; section 10(2)'s presumption is rebuttable and section 10(5) and 10A do not assist; amounts already paid exceed any hypothetical award, so no further compensation payable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant's application dismissed
  • Order nisi that applicant pay respondent's costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for Counsel; order to be made absolute in 14 days