MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

The court found substantial unexplained delay for both actions, held the Applicant had not established a reasonable excuse (failure to file Form 2 did not legally justify delay and ignorance of rights was not sufficient), accepted that the delay materially prejudiced the Respondents by loss of witnesses and evidence, and in the exercise of its discretion refused to receive/disapply time limits; both actions were struck out and costs ordered.

Citation
MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Mohammad Javed; 1st Respondent/defendant: Lo Kui Cheung; 2nd Respondent/defendant: DSC Holdings Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2015
Case Number
DCPI1995/2014
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation and Personal Injuries Actions (heard Together) / Interlocutory Applications: Six Summonses Seeking Striking Out or Court to Receive Time‑barred Actions
Outcome
Both the Employees Compensation Action (DCEC 1230/2014) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 1995/2014) are struck out
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance S14 Extension of Time, Limitation Ordinance S27 and S30 Equitable Disapplication of Limitation, Reasonable Excuse Doctrine, Strike Out for Time‑bar, Prejudice Through Loss of Evidence, Costs Orders
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Limitation Law Statutory Interpretation Employees Compensation Ordinance S14 Extension of Time Limitation Ordinance S27 and S30 Equitable Disapplication of Limitation Reasonable Excuse Doctrine +3 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Javed

Applicant/plaintiff

Lo Kui Cheung

1st Respondent/defendant

DSC Holdings Limited

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation and Personal Injuries Actions (heard Together) / Interlocutory Applications: Six Summonses Seeking Striking Out or Court to Receive Time‑barred Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the EC Action was commenced out of time and whether the court should receive it under s14(4) ECO
  2. 2 Whether the PI Action was statute‑barred and whether the court should disapply limitation under s30 LO
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant has a reasonable excuse for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court found substantial unexplained delay for both actions, held the Applicant had not established a reasonable excuse (failure to file Form 2 did not legally justify delay and ignorance of rights was not sufficient), accepted that the delay materially prejudiced the Respondents by loss of witnesses and evidence, and in the exercise of its discretion refused to receive/disapply time limits; both actions were struck out and costs ordered.

Court Disposition

Both the Employees Compensation Action (DCEC 1230/2014) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 1995/2014) are struck out

Orders

  • Both actions struck out
  • Order nisi that Applicant pay the 1st and 2nd Respondents costs of these applications in both actions to be taxed if not agreed with a certificate for counsel; becomes absolute if no application to vary within 14 days of decision