POOSAALA RAM PRASAD father of POOSAALA RAJA RAM v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

HCA 1575/2016

[2025] HKCFI 1224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1575 OF 2016

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  I handed down my decision on 7^th February 2025 (“the Decision”), dismissing Mr Poosala’s appeal against the Master’s order of 22^nd October 2024 which:

1.1  dismissed Mr Poosaala’s summons dated 16^th July 2024 for leave to amend his Statement of Claim (“SOC”) and Writ of Summons dated 14^th June 2016, and

1.2  struck out the SOC and dismissed the action with costs to the Defendant, pursuant to the Defendant’s summons of 19^th July 2024.

2.  Pursuant to O.59 r.21(2)(b) and (i), an appeal lies as of right.

3.  Time for appealing expired on 7^th March 2025. On 10^th March 2025, Mr Poosala issued a summons seeking an extension of time for lodging the notice of appeal.

4.  The factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are summarised in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, note 59/4/9. They are:

4.1  the length of the delay;

4.2  the reasons for the delay;

4.3  the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing is extended; and

4.4  the degree of prejudice to the proposed respondent if the application is granted.

5.  The court should not adopt a mechanistic approach, but consider all the circumstances and whether the overall justice of the case requires the exercise of the discretion to extend time.

6.  The delay is only a few days. However, no good reason has been given for the delay. Mr Poosala has exhibited a document showing that he had a medical appointment at 4:45pm on 7^th March 2025. This is not an explanation as to why a notice of appeal could not have been filed before that time.

7.  More importantly, the proposed grounds of appeal do not show any prospect of success. As the solicitors for the Defendant have pointed out, the matters raised in the proposed grounds were all addressed in the Decision, and no error has been identified. This is also the case for submissions made by Mr Poosala today.

8.  In such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the Defendant, to the administration of justice and to other litigants.

9.  I dismiss the application for an extension of time, with costs to the Defendant.