CHANG SANCHEZ AND ANOTHER v. HIN SUM MANPOWER CO. LTD

CHANG SANCHEZ AND ANOTHER v. HIN SUM MANPOWER CO. LTD

The 20-day delay was inexcusable because section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance plainly grants an appeal as of right and the solicitors' mistake about the applicable rules did not justify an extension; furthermore the intended appeal lacked merit, so the extension was properly refused.

Citation
CHANG SANCHEZ AND ANOTHER v. HIN SUM MANPOWER CO. LTD
Parties
Applicant (intended Respondent): CHANG SANCHEZ, AU CANDELARIA, acting on behalf of the eligible members of the Family of CHANG SANCHEZ, ROBERTO, deceased and as Personal Representative of CHANG SANCHEZ, ROBERTO, deceased; Respondent (intended Appellant): HIN SUM MANPOWER COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Case Number
HCMP934/2005
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 934 of 2005 (application for Extension of Time to Appeal) / Decision in Chambers on Application (26 May 2005)
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance S23, Extension of Time to Appeal, Appeal as of Right, Delay Excusability, Merits Assessment
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Statutory Compensation Civil Procedure Appeals Employees Compensation Ordinance S23 Extension of Time to Appeal Appeal as of Right Delay Excusability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHANG SANCHEZ, AU CANDELARIA, acting on behalf of the eligible members of the Family of CHANG SANCHEZ, ROBERTO, deceased and as Personal Representative of CHANG SANCHEZ, ROBERTO, deceased

Applicant (intended Respondent)

HIN SUM MANPOWER COMPANY LIMITED

Respondent (intended Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings No. 934 of 2005 (application for Extension of Time to Appeal) / Decision in Chambers on Application (26 May 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether an appeal under section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance is an appeal as of right
  3. 3 Whether a 20-day delay is excusable

Ratio Decidendi

The 20-day delay was inexcusable because section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance plainly grants an appeal as of right and the solicitors' mistake about the applicable rules did not justify an extension; furthermore the intended appeal lacked merit, so the extension was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the intended respondent (Chang Sanchez)