Pak Tin Chuen v Tung Yung Stationary Manufactory Ltd.

Court:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FAMV1/1999
Judgment Date:24 Mar 1999
FAMV000001/1999 PAK TIN CHUEN v. TUNG YUNG STATIONARY MANUFACTORY LTD.

FAMV000001/1999

FAMV No. 1 of 1999

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1 OF 1999 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 262 OF 1997)

_____________________

Between:
PAK TIN CHUEN Applicant
AND
TUNG YUNG STATIONARY MANUFACTORY LIMITED Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ

Date of Hearing: 24 March 1999

Date of Determination: 24 March 1999

_______________________

DETERMINATION

_______________________

Chief Justice Li:

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.

2. The applicant claims against the respondent in respect of injuries sustained on 26 May 1987 arising out of work. In his application before us, he stated his hope that he can receive compensation of $200 million and interest.

3. On 27 October 1995, the Master ordered that his claim be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favour of the respondent with costs. This was done after earlier orders were made against the applicant to answer interrogatories relating to the period after he sustained injuries, namely, the identity of his employer, his income and method of payment and whether he filed a tax return.

4. The applicant applied unsuccessfully to Deputy Judge Wesley Wong to set aside the order on 27 October 1995 and an earlier relevant order on 8 September 1995 on the ground that he did not receive the relevant summonses.

5. He then appealed. The Court of Appeal (Liu and Leong JJA and Wong J) allowed his appeal and set aside the Deputy Judge's order and the two orders made by the Master on 8 September and 27 October 1995. The Court of Appeal ordered him to reply to the interrogatories and also made various directions to progress his claim.

6. The applicant was not content with his success in the Court of Appeal. He applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. This was refused on 13 January 1999. On 22 January 1999, he applied to us for leave.

7. His application for leave has no merit. We dismiss it. He should proceed to prosecute his claim in accordance with the directions of the Court of Appeal. The respondent accepts that the time for compliance with these directions...

To continue reading

Request your trial