IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 934 OF 2005
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCEC NO. 859 OF 2002)
Before : Hon Tang JA in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 26 May 2005
Date of Decision : 26 May 2005
D E C I S I O N
1. This is the application by the employer for an extension of time to appeal. The delay is 20 days. In my opinion, the delay isinexcusable, section 23 of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap. 282 is clear in its terms and it is difficult to understandwhy the solicitors for the respondent should have thought that appeal was not as of right but was governed by O. 58 r. 2 Rules ofthe District Court, Cap. 336.
2. Mrs Chan who appears for the respondent has referred me to the Decision of the Court of Appeal in Wong Sing Fung v Fung Ming Stainless Steel Engineering Co. Ltd which was decided as long ago as 1987. That case did not decide whether appeal was as of right under section 23 of the Employees’Compensation Ordinance because it was not necessary to do so. But in my opinion, anyone who has read section 23 should be left inno doubt about it. So I am of the clear opinion that the delay is inexcusable.
3. As for merits, the appeal is essentially an appeal on findings of fact and against the judge’s assessment of the evidence aftera hearing which lasted 5 or 6 days. It is clear from the judgment that the decision is soundly based and as Ms Pinto has shown inher skeleton, the appeal has little or no merit.
4. So for these reasons, I would not grant an extension of time to appeal. The application is dismissed with costs.
Ms Josephine Pinto, instructed by Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant (Intended Respondent)
Mrs Dora K H Chan, instructed by Messrs Ng & Co., for the Respondent (Intended Appellant)