Mok King Tung v. Weisheng Transportation & Enterprises Co. Ltd.

DCEC444/1999

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 444 OF 1999

_______________________

R U L I N G

_______________________

1. Although this is actually a rather finely balanced matter, and Miss Liu is right that in matters of discretion, the Court of Appeal will uphold the decision at first instance even though it might have exercised the discretion differently I think Mr Yee has said enough to persuade me that I should give him leave to appeal. But I do so on terms that the respondents do prosecute the appeal with due diligence in such a way that the trial date of 10 January be held, if at all possible. Mr Yee, what I mean by that is, on any view, this is a half hour appeal in the Court of Appeal. It is an interlocutory appeal. All they need to get are two Justices of Appeal to hear it, so it is up to your solicitors now, please, to do this as soon possible. It would be a great shame to lose the 10th of January.

(Discussion)

2. Costs in the appeal.

(Submission re wasted costs of this hearing)

3. I am against you. I took the view that I should adjourn this for an inter partes' hearing when you indicated to me on Wednesday that there was going to be material suggesting that you were going to seek to adduce evidence to explain your reasons for not having complied with the order and the reasons for the delay, and I took the view then that the other side should be present to hear what was said about that and that was, I thought, the right thing to do.

4. Legal Aid taxation of the applicant's costs.

5. Your solicitor is in court, she hears me. I would be very grateful if steps are now taken starting today to get this thing in front of the Court of Appeal and it really is very much a 20 minute or half hour argument, that is all.