MOHAMMED HANIF v. PAUL Y.- SELI JOINT VENTURE

DCEC 493/2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 30 OF 2001

BETWEEN

R U L I N G

1. It is ordered that the unless summons be adjourned generally with liberty to restore. 

2. The applicant in DCEC 493 of 2000, do within seven days of today, provide to the solicitors for the Applicant in DCEC 30 of 2001;

(a) the passport numbers of the passports used/held by the Applicant.

(b) all dependants named in the amended application dated 27 September 2000; and

(c) his son, Mr Tariq Mahmood during the period 15 January 2000 to 31 March 2001.

3. The Applicant in DCEC 493 of 2000, do within 28 days from the date hereof, provide a copy of all Pakistani and other passports issued to (a) himself, (b) all dependants named in the amended application dated 27 September 2000 and c) his son, Mr Tariq Mamood.

(Submissions and discussion re costs)

4. I take the view that this is all the result of less than proper activity on the part of Boase, Cohen & Collins and of the persons who they represent.  I think although Mr Carey has not achieved all that he set out to achieve in the unless summons that he has taken out, he has had orders which I would not have made if he had not come to court, and this is in the way of a warning shot to the other side, that they have really got to get on with it.  This is all down to them.

5. And so I shall make orders that the costs of and incidental to the summons filed on 2 February 2002, including the costs of the hearing on 6 February 2002 and the costs of all preparatory work carried out by the solicitors for the applicant in DCEC 30 of 2001 in respect of the hearing on 11 February 2002, be paid by the applicant in DCEC 492 of 2000, to be taxed in default of agreement.

6. There will be orders for Legal Aid taxation in respect of the applicant’s costs in No. 30 of 2001 and No. 493 of 2002, in respect of the hearing of 11 February and to include all the costs of today.

(Submission by Applicant (DCEC30/2001 re costs)

7. Note: Mr Carey appeared at 9.30 am.  Case listed at 9.30 am. Judge decided to deliver judgment in another matter which concluded at 10.30 am.  This case called on.  Mr Sit absent, but I presume, would have attended by 11 am when he mistakenly thought the case had been listed.  Mr Carey sent away to 2.30 because judge now wished to proceed with a trial.  Had Mr Sit been present at 10.30, this matter would have been heard at 10.30.