SHAH NISAR v. WAI KIT ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

SHAH NISAR v. WAI KIT ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to withdraw was granted. The court held s.25 does not operate in this case because the employer (1st respondent) and the third party (3rd respondent) were held jointly liable at common law (per Yardway), and the 15 August 2003 written letter to the employer satisfied s.25(2). Consequently s.25(3)(i) was inapplicable. The applicant acted reasonably in commencing the compensation proceedings to preserve statutory rights and did not unnecessarily cause costs; therefore costs were ordered against the 1st and 3rd respondents and no order as to costs against the 2nd respondent.

Citation
SHAH NISAR v. WAI KIT ENGINEERING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Shah Nisar; 1st Respondent: Wai Kit Engineering Company Limited; 2nd Respondent: Hung Shui Steels Structuals Limited; 3rd Respondent: Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Case Number
DCEC1094/2004
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation / Application to Withdraw Proceedings Under Order 21 Rule 3
Outcome
Leave to withdraw proceedings granted; costs ordered as specified below.
Legal Topics
Employees Compensation Ordinance S.25, Notice to Employer S.25(2), Leave to Withdraw Proceedings, Costs, Time Limit S.14(1), Concurrent Common Law and Statutory Claims
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Personal Injury Tort Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Employees Compensation Ordinance S.25 Notice to Employer S.25(2) Leave to Withdraw Proceedings +3 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shah Nisar

Applicant

Wai Kit Engineering Company Limited

1st Respondent

Hung Shui Steels Structuals Limited

2nd Respondent

Hyundai Engineering & Construction Company Limited

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation / Application to Withdraw Proceedings Under Order 21 Rule 3

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to withdraw the employees compensation proceedings should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with s.25(2) notice requirement to employer
  3. 3 Whether s.25 applies where employer and third party were held jointly liable at common law

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to withdraw was granted. The court held s.25 does not operate in this case because the employer (1st respondent) and the third party (3rd respondent) were held jointly liable at common law (per Yardway), and the 15 August 2003 written letter to the employer satisfied s.25(2). Consequently s.25(3)(i) was inapplicable. The applicant acted reasonably in commencing the compensation proceedings to preserve statutory rights and did not unnecessarily cause costs; therefore costs were ordered against the 1st and 3rd respondents and no order as to costs against the 2nd respondent.

Court Disposition

Leave to withdraw proceedings granted; costs ordered as specified below.

Orders

  • By consent, leave is granted to the applicant to withdraw these proceedings.
  • There be no order as to the 2nd respondent's costs of these proceedings.