HUI CHING MOON v. DOUBLE SECURITY LTD

HUI CHING MOON v. DOUBLE SECURITY LTD

The court exercised its discretion under section 18 to grant an extension of time to appeal because the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for delay (period spent obtaining legal aid and resultant solicitor action), there was no demonstrable prejudice to the respondent, and the substantive assessment of compensation requires a full rehearing; the dismissal application for want of prosecution failed for lack of inordinate and inexcusable delay or prejudice.

Citation
HUI CHING MOON v. DOUBLE SECURITY LTD
Parties
Applicant: Hui Ching Moon; Respondent: Double Security Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 October 2008
Case Number
DCEC1530/2006
Procedural Posture
Employees' Compensation / Preliminary Determination on Extension of Time Under Section 18 and Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal granted; dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs ordered in favour of Applicant
Legal Topics
Section 18 Extension of Time, Appeal Out of Time, Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Assessment of Compensation Under Section 9
Source Language
EN
Employees' Compensation Civil Procedure Limitation/time Bar Abuse of Process Section 18 Extension of Time Appeal Out of Time Strike Out for Want of Prosecution Assessment of Compensation Under Section 9

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hui Ching Moon

Applicant

Double Security Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees' Compensation / Preliminary Determination on Extension of Time Under Section 18 and Strike Out for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 18 to extend time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'appeal out of time' in the application suffices to invoke section 18
  3. 3 Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay/want of prosecution justified striking out the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion under section 18 to grant an extension of time to appeal because the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for delay (period spent obtaining legal aid and resultant solicitor action), there was no demonstrable prejudice to the respondent, and the substantive assessment of compensation requires a full rehearing; the dismissal application for want of prosecution failed for lack of inordinate and inexcusable delay or prejudice.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal granted; dismissal for want of prosecution dismissed; costs ordered in favour of Applicant

Orders

  • Grant extension of time under section 18 of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance to the Applicant to pursue the appeal
  • Dismiss the Respondent's application to dismiss for want of prosecution