MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Applicant's stated reasons did not amount to a reasonable excuse or make it equitable to disapply limitation: delays were substantial, applicant's background and conduct showed he should have acted earlier, failure to file Form 2 did not legally justify the delay, and defendants demonstrated real prejudice from loss of witnesses and evidence; therefore both EC and PI actions must be struck out and costs awarded to respondents.

Citation
MOHAMMAD JAVED v. LO KUI CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff: Mohammad Javed; 1st Respondent / 1st Defendant: Lo Kui Cheung; 2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant: DSC Holdings Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2015
Case Number
DCEC1230/2014
Procedural Posture
Employees Compensation Action (dcec 1230/2014) and Personal Injuries Action (dcpi 1995/2014) Heard Together / Strike Out Applications/requests for Court to Receive Out‑of‑time Claims Under ECO S14(4) and LO S30
Outcome
Both the Employees Compensation Action (DCEC 1230/2014) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 1995/2014) are struck out
Legal Topics
Time Bar, Extension of Time, Reasonable Excuse, Striking Out, Prejudice From Delay
Source Language
EN
Employees Compensation Ordinance Limitation Ordinance Personal Injury Civil Procedure Time Bar Extension of Time Reasonable Excuse Striking Out +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Javed

Applicant / Plaintiff

Lo Kui Cheung

1st Respondent / 1st Defendant

DSC Holdings Limited

2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employees Compensation Action (dcec 1230/2014) and Personal Injuries Action (dcpi 1995/2014) Heard Together / Strike Out Applications/requests for Court to Receive Out‑of‑time Claims Under ECO S14(4) and LO S30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the EC Action and PI Action, commenced after statutory limits, should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the court should receive and determine the EC Action under ECO s14(4) for reasonable excuse
  3. 3 Whether the court should disapply the limitation period under LO s30 for the PI Action

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's stated reasons did not amount to a reasonable excuse or make it equitable to disapply limitation: delays were substantial, applicant's background and conduct showed he should have acted earlier, failure to file Form 2 did not legally justify the delay, and defendants demonstrated real prejudice from loss of witnesses and evidence; therefore both EC and PI actions must be struck out and costs awarded to respondents.

Court Disposition

Both the Employees Compensation Action (DCEC 1230/2014) and the Personal Injuries Action (DCPI 1995/2014) are struck out

Orders

  • Order nisi that Applicant pay the 1st and 2nd Respondents costs of these applications in both actions to be taxed if not agreed with certificate for counsel
  • Cost order nisi to become absolute if no application to vary made within 14 days from date of decision