IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 809 OF 2001
Before: H H Judge Chow in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 August 2011
Date of Decision: 22 August 2011
D E C I S I O N
1. This is the Respondent’s application for an order that: (1) the Applicant’s claim be struck out for want of prosecution; and(2) costs of this action including costs of an incidental to this application be to the Respondent, to be taxed, if not agreed.
2. The Applicant filed his application on 9 October 2001. Judgment on liability was entered by consent on 19 November 2001. On 21January 2003 the said judgment was set aside and the Applicant lodged his appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 3 October 2003 the Applicant’sappeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
3. On 4 March 2004 an order for discovery was made. On 20 January 2004 the Applicant made an affirmation relating to an order in respectof the possession of some documents. On 18 October 2004 the solicitors for the Applicant wrote to the Respondent’s solicitor relatingto some errors of typing in a letter. That is the last correspondence between the Applicant’s solicitor and the Respondent’ssolicitor. Then there is the discharge of legal aid as evidenced by a legal aid certificate dated 13 March 2007.
4. So the last action taken up by the Applicant was in 2004. And then since that time nothing further has been done by the Applicant. So there has been a lapse of about 7 years by the Applicant. No doubt this is an inordinate delay by him and such delay may causeprejudice to the Respondent because there may be failure of memory, if it goes to trial, on the part of the Respondent’s witnessor witnesses. I therefore make an order in terms of the summons.
Applicant, in person, absent
Mr C S Lam, of Hastings & Co., for the Respondent