MUNG CHI KEUNG v. CHAN KAM WONG AND ANOTHER

MUNG CHI KEUNG v. CHAN KAM WONG AND ANOTHER

Applicant had a reasonable excuse for not joining CHAN before trial but, once trial proceedings on 17–18 June 2003 made it likely CHAN was the employer, the applicant lacked a reasonable excuse for further delay; the delay of over 3 years beyond the 2-year limit was unreasonable and would cause real prejudice to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MUNG CHI KEUNG v. CHAN KAM WONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: MUNG Chi-keung; 1st Respondent: CHAN Kam-wong; 2nd Respondent: Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 September 2005
Case Number
DCEC299/2005
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Application (extension of Time Under Employees Compensation Ordinance) / Decision on Application to Extend Time (application Refused)
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Time Bar, Employees Compensation Ordinance (s.16, S.24), Liability of Principal Contractor, Prejudice/default Judgment
Source Language
en
Employment Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Time Bar Employees Compensation Ordinance (s.16, S.24) Liability of Principal Contractor +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MUNG Chi-keung

Applicant

CHAN Kam-wong

1st Respondent

Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Application (extension of Time Under Employees Compensation Ordinance) / Decision on Application to Extend Time (application Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for not suing CHAN from the outset
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for not applying to join CHAN after trial made it likely CHAN was the employer
  3. 3 Whether other factors (prejudice to ECAFB, excessive delay) justify exercising discretion to extend time

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant had a reasonable excuse for not joining CHAN before trial but, once trial proceedings on 17–18 June 2003 made it likely CHAN was the employer, the applicant lacked a reasonable excuse for further delay; the delay of over 3 years beyond the 2-year limit was unreasonable and would cause real prejudice to ECAFB (loss of CHAN as witness/defendant and likely unjust default judgment), therefore discretion to extend time must be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board for today's hearing and all previously reserved costs, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed