SADIQ, MUHAMMAD v. CITY GAS PIPING ENGINEERING CO AND ANOTHER

SADIQ, MUHAMMAD v. CITY GAS PIPING ENGINEERING CO AND ANOTHER

The Respondents failed to comply with the court's directions to nominate a neurological expert and did not apply for enlargement of time; therefore they sought indulgence from the court and must bear the costs of the hearing resolving that dispute; the Applicant was not at fault for arranging the single examination to meet the court timetable.

Citation
SADIQ, MUHAMMAD v. CITY GAS PIPING ENGINEERING CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: SADIQ, MUHAMMAD; 1st Respondent: CITY GAS PIPING ENGINEERING COMPANY; 2nd Respondent: CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 September 2006
Case Number
DCEC173/2006
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Costs Hearing / Ruling on Costs
Outcome
1st and 2nd Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the present hearing; Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance, Expert Medical Evidence, Medical Examination for Litigation, Extension of Time, Joint Expert Report, Section 16 Issues
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Costs Employees Compensation Ordinance Expert Medical Evidence Medical Examination for Litigation Extension of Time +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SADIQ, MUHAMMAD

Applicant

CITY GAS PIPING ENGINEERING COMPANY

1st Respondent

CHUN WO CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Costs Hearing / Ruling on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents lost the right to arrange a neurological expert examination by failing to comply with court directions
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was at fault in arranging and proceeding with a single neurological examination
  3. 3 Whether section 16 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance applied to the proposed medical examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents failed to comply with the court's directions to nominate a neurological expert and did not apply for enlargement of time; therefore they sought indulgence from the court and must bear the costs of the hearing resolving that dispute; the Applicant was not at fault for arranging the single examination to meet the court timetable.

Court Disposition

1st and 2nd Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of the present hearing; Applicant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Respondents do pay the Applicant costs of the present hearing in any event to be taxed if not agreed
  • The Applicant's own costs shall be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations