DCCJ 2024/2022

[2025] HKDC 1376

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2024 OF 2022

-------------------------

BETWEEN

-------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

REASONS FOR DECISION

--------------------------------------------------

Introduction

1. This action was listed before me for trial. On 4 August 2025, the day before the trial was due to start on 5 August 2025, Hastings & Co, solicitors for the Plaintiff ( “P” ), wrote in to say they became aware of the fact that P’s sole witness had become unavailable for a medical reason and sought directions. I directed my clerk to inform the parties of my thoughts at the time, in writing, in these words, which he did: -

“With reference to Hastings & Co’s letter dated 4 August 2025, the parties are hereby put on notice that I am considering whether I should on my own motion dispose of the entire matter summarily via Order 14A, as it seems to me the sole issue is the construction of a single document, and live evidence is irrelevant.”

2. On 5 August 2025, before the trial was to start, heavy rain in Hong Kong resulted in the Observatory’s issuance of the Black Rainstorm Warning Signal which in turn resulted in the Judiciary adjourning all cases throughout Hong Kong so the trial did not start. The parties therefore had a whole day to consider my thoughts, as communicated to them in writing previously, as explained above.

3. On 6 August 2025, at the start of the hearing, Julia Lau (acting for P) properly informed me she had a word with her professional opponent Kwan Ping Kan (acting for the Defendant, “D” ) and they agreed the parties would proceed by way of the Order 14A summary procedure, instead of a full-blown trial. Mr Kwan nodded in agreement. All of us dived right into the question of construction, examining the words used in the document to be construed by me (specifically, the employees’ compensation insurance policy between P and D numbered QG1-W0106819-WCA issued in 2016, “the Policy” ) and relevant exchanges in relation to that followed. One of the things Ms Lau said to me was that she acknowledged her Statement of Claim ( “SoC” ), which was not settled by her, was not very good. Ms Lau, however, did not make any oral application for leave to amend the SoC at that stage and just sat down to let Mr Kwan have his turn.

4. Mr Kwan rose to his feet and started his oral submissions. His oral submissions did not surprise me at all because they were foreshadowed by §§23 to 27 of his written submissions lodged on 28 July 2025, which I had read. I thanked Mr Kwan and invited Ms Lau to make her final speech in reply, if she con