SIU TUNG CHOI v. FOO LUM HOLIDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

SIU TUNG CHOI v. FOO LUM HOLIDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

The claimant's cause of action was held to have arisen on 2 November 2012 (time began to run then) because the notice of claim only pleaded that incident and continuing state based allegations did not constitute separate acts for limitation; notwithstanding the short delay the court exercised its discretion under s82(3) DDO and s30(3) Limitation Ordinance factors to allow the out-of-time claim to proceed; on the question of R1's liability the pleaded facts were sufficient to raise agency/principal arguments such that the claim against R1 could stand (or be amended) rather than be struck out.

Citation
SIU TUNG CHOI v. FOO LUM HOLIDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Claimant: C; 1st Respondent: R1; 2nd Respondent: R2
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 2016
Case Number
DCEO2/2015
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Strike Out Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out
Outcome
Respondents' application to strike out dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19, Time Bar and S82 DDO Discretionary Extension, Principal/agent Liability Under DDO Ss48 and 56, Particulars and New Notice Procedure
Source Language
EN
Disability Discrimination Civil Procedure Agency Law Limitation Law Striking Out Under Order 18 R 19 Time Bar and S82 DDO Discretionary Extension Principal/agent Liability Under DDO Ss48 and 56 Particulars and New Notice Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Claimant

R1

1st Respondent

R2

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Strike Out Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's cause of action was time-barred and when limitation began to run
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s82(3) DDO to allow an out-of-time claim
  3. 3 Whether s56(1)-(2) DDO or agency principles render R1 liable for acts of R2

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's cause of action was held to have arisen on 2 November 2012 (time began to run then) because the notice of claim only pleaded that incident and continuing state based allegations did not constitute separate acts for limitation; notwithstanding the short delay the court exercised its discretion under s82(3) DDO and s30(3) Limitation Ordinance factors to allow the out-of-time claim to proceed; on the question of R1's liability the pleaded facts were sufficient to raise agency/principal arguments such that the claim against R1 could stand (or be amended) rather than be struck out.

Court Disposition

Respondents' application to strike out dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Order nisi: each party to bear their own costs of this application (subject to s73C(3) District Court Ordinance)