RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA

RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA

The petitioner’s variation application was refused because the 4th and 5th affidavits were not properly and timely served or reliance on them was disproportionate given proximity to the hearing; the debtor’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed out of time and not brought inter partes as required by O.59 r.2B, and in any event disclosed no arguable grounds; accordingly no order as to costs was made in respect of each application.

Citation
RE CHEN CHERYL DEANNA
Parties
Debtor: CHEN CHERYL DEANNA formerly known as CHERYL DEANNA CHEN or CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA or CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL; Petitioner: CHEN PAK YIN STELLA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Case Number
HCB3082/2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Proceedings / Decision on Costs and Leave to Appeal (post Dismissal)
Outcome
Petition to vary costs order nisi refused; Debtor's application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction and on merits; No order as to costs for each application; earlier costs directions up to 23 August 2016 remain as previously ordered.
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Variation of Costs Order Nisi, Service of Affidavits, Leave to Appeal, Time Limits and Jurisdiction Under Procedural Rules
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Court Costs Appeals Costs Orders Variation of Costs Order Nisi Service of Affidavits Leave to Appeal +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEN CHERYL DEANNA formerly known as CHERYL DEANNA CHEN or CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA or CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL

Debtor

CHEN PAK YIN STELLA

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Proceedings / Decision on Costs and Leave to Appeal (post Dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary the costs order nisi to include costs of the petitioner's 4th and 5th affidavits
  2. 2 Whether the debtor has leave to appeal the court's costs decision given time limits and procedural requirements
  3. 3 Whether the court may extend the time under O.59 r.2B(1) and the effect of non-inter partes applications

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner’s variation application was refused because the 4th and 5th affidavits were not properly and timely served or reliance on them was disproportionate given proximity to the hearing; the debtor’s application for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was filed out of time and not brought inter partes as required by O.59 r.2B, and in any event disclosed no arguable grounds; accordingly no order as to costs was made in respect of each application.

Court Disposition

Petition to vary costs order nisi refused; Debtor's application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction and on merits; No order as to costs for each application; earlier costs directions up to 23 August 2016 remain as previously ordered.

Orders

  • Petitioner’s summons dated 20 March 2017 to vary the costs order nisi is refused.
  • Debtor’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed (filed out of time and not inter partes); application has no merit.