Lo Hon Sing v Hui Pak Tai And Another

Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMV22/1998
Judgment Date:20 Jan 1999
FAMV000022/1998 LO HON SING v. HUI PAK TAI AND ANOTHER

FAMV000022/1998

FAMV No. 22 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 22 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 11 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
LO HON SING Applicant
AND
HUI PAK TAI and HUI KWOK LEUNG trading as PO LOONG TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (a firm) Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ

Date of Hearing: 20 January 1999

Date of Determination: 20 January 1999

______________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________________

Mr Justice Ching PJ :

1. The applicant was injured while at work and brought proceedings against his employer successfully. He was awarded damages in the sum of $565,172 from which was deducted the amount he received in employee's compensation. He was also awarded interest on that part of the award relating to pain and suffering and loss of amenities at the rate of 2% per annum from the date of the issue of the writ until judgment. He appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal which also refused him leave to appeal further. He now applies to us for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. The refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal occurred on 28 July, 1998. By s.24(4) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, the application to this committee had to be made within 28 days. Instead it was lodged on 14 December, 1998, with no reason put forward for the delay.

3. In refusing leave the Court of Appeal stated that the claim did not involve $1,000,000 or more, that the application for leave did not reveal any matter of great or general public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. We agree with that and this application is dismissed.

4. There appears, however, to be an arithmetical error on page 20 of the judgment of the Deputy Judge in the sum of $5,600. In default of agreement on this the applicant can take suitable steps under the rule of Court which allows such accidental errors to be corrected.

( Henry Litton ) ( Charles Ching ) ( Kemal Bokhary )
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Representation:

Applicant, Lo Hon Sing...

To continue reading

Request your trial