30 Nov 2021
The plaintiff's statements failed to plead material facts necessary to disclose any reasonable cause of action; the allegations were implausible, detached from reality and amounted to frivolous, vexatious and abusive litigation. Accordingly the statements of claim were struck out and the action dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs in the assessed sum of HKD 90,000.
17 Sept 2020
There was no reasonable excuse for the delay. The applicant and her former solicitors had knowledge of PPML from the Amended Form 2 and earlier correspondence and failed to investigate or apply to join PPML within a reasonable time; the unexplained prolonged inaction justified dismissal of the out‑of‑time joinder application.
4 Feb 2015
Applicant established a reasonable excuse for the delay: genuine and understandable confusion over identity of employer and principal contractor, reasonable investigative steps taken, lack of replies from parties and Kowloon Hotel, and absence of real prejudice to intended respondents; court therefore exercised discretion under s14(4) ECO to allow joinder and amendment.
25 Feb 2010
The Court of Appeal (majority) held the judge below misapplied the governing test and factors, concluded the appellant’s explanation (age, illiteracy, waiting for police investigation, late/erroneous advice and timing of legal aid) could potentially amount to good reason at stage one, and on a fresh exercise of discretion found that the balance of hardship favoured the appellant; the order below striking out the writ was set aside and time extended to the date the writ was issued.
9 Oct 2003
Because the relevant property remained unknown to the liquidator and directors until after the statutory two‑year period and there were genuine difficulties in ascertaining shareholders' wishes, the court found exceptional circumstances to justify extending the two‑year period under s.290(1) and accordingly extended the period and declared the dissolution void to permit the company to realize the property for the benefit of its members.
27 Sept 2002
The court found on balance the applicant did not know of the limitation period and was induced by the respondent and its agents to believe court proceedings were unnecessary; this constituted a reasonable excuse under s14(4), entitling the applicant to proceed out of time, and the court exercised its discretion under s18 to extend time for the appeal; accordingly leave was granted and costs were ordered in the cause while the application for a certificate for counsel was refused.
22 Oct 2001
Representations by senior departmental officers in a disciplined service, made to a low-ranked employee and accepted as authoritative, constituted a reasonable excuse operating for the whole two-year limitation period; the delay was short and caused no prejudice, therefore leave under s14(4) should be granted.
29 Jun 2001
Applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse under section 14(4) of the Employees Compensation Ordinance; ignorance of rights is insufficient; therefore time was not extended and the application was dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
31 Oct 1995
Given the short post‑expiry delay of nine months, the plaintiff's severe disability and explanation for delay (lack of awareness, pursuit of recovery, insurer statements and MIB advice), the absence of material prejudice to the insurer's ability to defend and the substantial prejudice to the plaintiff if barred, it is equitable to disapply the limitation period under s.30 and allow the action to proceed.
7 Apr 1993
Judge concluded plaintiff had an arguable case that Patt was employer, the plaintiff and his advisers were not blameworthy for the delay in light of Drado's conduct and association with Patt, there was no cast-iron negligence case against solicitors, and prejudice to Patt was limited given the association and its access to relevant materials; balancing these factors made it equitable to disapply section 27 and allow the action to proceed.