LICAYO, JINNA DIMINO v. SCULLY, SEAN JOSEPH

LICAYO, JINNA DIMINO v. SCULLY, SEAN JOSEPH

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the respondent's summons because the claimant had presented a legitimate, unforeseen logistical reason for a brief (three-day) delay in notarising her affidavit, the respondent was not prejudiced (he had access to an unsigned finalized affidavit before the deadline),...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 266
Parties
Claimant: Jinna Dimino Licayo; Respondent: Sean Joseph Scully
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2023
Case Number
DCEO7/2021
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunities Action Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (sexual Harassment) / Chambers Paper Disposal of Interlocutory Summons (setting Aside / Extension Application)
Outcome
Respondent's summons dated 29 November 2022 dismissed; costs order nisi in favour of the claimant
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment Claim, Setting Aside Interlocutory Judgment, Extension of Time for Affidavit, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Sex Discrimination Employment Law Civil Procedure Costs Sexual Harassment Claim Setting Aside Interlocutory Judgment Extension of Time for Affidavit Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jinna Dimino Licayo

Claimant

Sean Joseph Scully

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunities Action Under the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (sexual Harassment) / Chambers Paper Disposal of Interlocutory Summons (setting Aside / Extension Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's summons challenging the claimant's retrospective extension application is an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the court may reconsider an order that has not been perfected
  3. 3 Whether retrospective leave to file affidavit out of time was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the respondent's summons because the claimant had presented a legitimate, unforeseen logistical reason for a brief (three-day) delay in notarising her affidavit, the respondent was not prejudiced (he had access to an unsigned finalized affidavit before the deadline), retrospective leave had been granted on 9 November 2022 and nothing in the respondent's renewed objections justified overturning that decision or showed abuse of process; thus the summons lacked merit and was dismissed with a costs order nisi for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Respondent's summons dated 29 November 2022 dismissed; costs order nisi in favour of the claimant

Orders

  • Respondent's summons dated 29 November 2022 is dismissed.
  • There is an order nisi that the respondent do pay the claimant's costs of opposing the summons.