Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Employees compensation ordinance s.10(5)

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2010

HO SHUK MAN v. SUNFLOWER TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

Citation

HO SHUK MAN v. SUNFLOWER TRAVEL SERVICE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC618/2009

The application was dismissed because the Applicant failed to comply with the affidavit verification requirement of Order 29 Rule 10, the relief sought (multiple interim periodical payments) is not authorized by section 10(5) of the Ordinance or by Order 29 Rule 10 (which contemplates an interim payment), and applications under section 10(5) should be heard in open court rather than in chambers.
10 Mar 1999

CHAN SIU LING v. TONYEAR INVESTMENT LTD. t/a Kwan Shing Restaurant

Citation

CHAN SIU LING v. TONYEAR INVESTMENT LTD. t/a Kwan Shing Restaurant
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV216/1998

By majority the Court of Appeal held that s.14(1)'s limitation applies to applications for periodical payments brought under s.18A(2) even where the payments sought are for months beyond the initial 24-month period; however the court retains a broad discretion under s.14(4) to admit and determine out‑of‑time applications and should exercise that discretion where there is a reasonable excuse (for example voluntary payments continued and belief in recovery).