ZSH v. XY

ZSH v. XY

Despite reservations about delay and some merits of the husband's explanations, the court exercised its discretion to permit an appeal because the Anton Pillar order and the gross sum costs order raised serious arguable errors (lack of urgency, improper scope, and an abusive costs application) and justice required the appellate court to consider them; time to appeal was extended by 14 days and leave granted to appeal the costs order.

Citation
ZSH v. XY
Parties
Petitioner (wife): Zsh; Respondent (husband): Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Case Number
HCMP815/2008
Procedural Posture
Family Law Ancillary Relief and Enforcement of Discovery; Interlocutory Applications / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Costs and Anton Pillar Order
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal Anton Pillar order granted; leave to appeal granted against the gross sum costs order; costs directions given.
Legal Topics
Ancillary Relief, Anton Pillar Order / Search and Seizure, Specific Discovery, Costs (gross Sum, Indemnity), Extension of Time to Appeal, Penal Notice and Committal
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Evidence Enforcement Ancillary Relief Anton Pillar Order / Search and Seizure Specific Discovery Costs (gross Sum, Indemnity) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zsh

Petitioner (wife)

Respondent

Respondent (husband)

Procedural Posture

Family Law Ancillary Relief and Enforcement of Discovery; Interlocutory Applications / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Costs and Anton Pillar Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be extended to permit appeal against the Anton Pillar order
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to appeal the gross sum costs order made on 2 January 2008
  3. 3 Whether the Anton Pillar order was properly granted (urgency, risk of destruction, scope)

Ratio Decidendi

Despite reservations about delay and some merits of the husband's explanations, the court exercised its discretion to permit an appeal because the Anton Pillar order and the gross sum costs order raised serious arguable errors (lack of urgency, improper scope, and an abusive costs application) and justice required the appellate court to consider them; time to appeal was extended by 14 days and leave granted to appeal the costs order.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal Anton Pillar order granted; leave to appeal granted against the gross sum costs order; costs directions given.

Orders

  • Extend time for the husband to appeal the Anton Pillar Order made 17 December 2007 by 14 days from 22 May 2008.
  • Grant leave to the husband to appeal against the gross sum costs order made on 2 January 2008.