IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION CASE NO. 444 OF 1999
Coram: H H Judge Carlson in Chambers
Date of Judgment: 3 December 2001
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 Appealwill uphold the decision at first instance even though it might have exercised the discretion differently I think Mr Yee has saidenough to persuade me that I should give him leave to appeal. But I do so on terms that the respondents do prosecute the appeal withdue 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 anyview, this is a half hour appeal in the Court of Appeal. It is an interlocutory appeal. All they need to get are two Justices ofAppeal 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 the10th of January.
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 thatthere was going to be material suggesting that you were going to seek to adduce evidence to explain your reasons for not having compliedwith 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 saidabout 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 frontof the Court of Appeal and it really is very much a 20 minute or half hour argument, that is all.
Present: Miss S K Liu, of Cheng, Yeung & Co, for the Applicant
Mr Kent Yee, instructed by Messrs Alfred Lam, Keung & Ko, for the Respondent