XCHRX Ng Hon Tsang v. Satisfactory Printing & Dyeing Factory Ltd.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 420 OF 2001

__________________

R U L I N G

__________________

1. On 3 April 1998, the applicant who was working at a warehouse in Kwai Chung, was struck by a roll of cloth which fell from a wooden rack with the result that his back was injured and for which he was given sick leave. He has applied for compensation under the Ordinance by an application dated 12 June of this year, so it is one year and two months out of time, and so he now applies for me to extend time under section 14(4) of the Ordinance, which would have the effect of enabling me to hear and determine his application notwithstanding that it is out of time.

2. The court will do so where the applicant can demonstrate reasonable cause for having delayed. He has filed in support of his application a letter dated 28 July and he has also given further explanation today in the course of the argument.

3. The chronology appears to be this: that the Labour Department investigated the matter and he was examined by a Medical Board and on 22 October 1998; they assessed his disability at 21/2 per cent and a Certificate of Assessment was issued on 29 October 1998 which amounted to $13,668 which was in fact paid to him on 19 November 1998. That was subsequently reviewed by a Medical Board on 23 November the following year, which resulted in an increase of the percentage disability to one of 3 per cent and a Certificate of Assessment was then issued consequent upon that successful review on 25 January 2000, the amount assessed being $30,730 and some cents, and that was done on 15 February 2000 and he was paid that amount. So that is the relevant history.

4. He has told me that he had intended to prosecute this claim at a very early stage but his wife dissuaded him from suing his boss, as he puts it, on the basis that that might have caused trouble. I am told that, in fact, in as early as May 1998 his employment was terminated by his employer, not for reasons directly related to the injury but more related to his performance at work, and he approached the Labour Tribunal to consider his claim for dismissal. But he then subsequently, and very much later, decided that he would make a claim after all. He, in fact, applied to the Legal Aid Department on 11 June of this year and he was refused Legal Aid. He appealed to the court and the court dismissed his appeal.

5. I have looked at all the circumstances of his case and one must always have considerable sympathy for people in the applicant's position who perhaps are very ignorant of legal proceedings and may or may not have a particularly high level of education, but the court, of course, does allow two years in which to bring applications of this kind which are designed to be dealt with quickly and in a relatively uncomplicated manner.

6. In this case he is some 14 months out of time and I can simply discover no reason whatsoever which would amount to reasonable cause which would properly enable me to extend time. And so I am afraid this is a very clear case where I ought to refuse the applicant's application. Accordingly, the application itself must stand dismissed.

7. There will be an order for costs in the respondent's favour.