LUI KWONG WAH v. KWAN PO PING AND ANOTHER

LUI KWONG WAH v. KWAN PO PING AND ANOTHER

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the 19‑day delay was inexcusable, the Defendant failed to plead or lead expert evidence on foreign law and thus could not show a real prospect of success on appeal, and the trial judge was correct to refuse to entertain unpleaded foreign law or to adjourn the trial; costs were ordered to the Plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
LUI KWONG WAH v. KWAN PO PING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Defendant (applicant): Lui Kwong Wah; 1st Plaintiff (1st Respondent): Kwan Po Ping; 2nd Plaintiff (2nd Respondent): Lui Ngai Chi Arthur; 3rd Plaintiff (3rd Respondent): Lui Lik Chee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 August 2010
Case Number
HCMP1365/2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal From HCA No.302 of 2008 / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Declaration of Trust, Extension of Time to Appeal, Revocation of Declaration, Foreign Law Pleading, Costs
Source Language
EN
Trusts Civil Procedure Private International Law Declaration of Trust Extension of Time to Appeal Revocation of Declaration Foreign Law Pleading Costs

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lui Kwong Wah

Defendant (applicant)

Kwan Po Ping

1st Plaintiff (1st Respondent)

Lui Ngai Chi Arthur

2nd Plaintiff (2nd Respondent)

Lui Lik Chee

3rd Plaintiff (3rd Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal From HCA No.302 of 2008 / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2001 Declaration constituted a trust and whether it was revocable or irrevocable
  2. 2 Whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted
  3. 3 Whether foreign law (Vietnamese or PRC) could be relied on without pleading or expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the 19‑day delay was inexcusable, the Defendant failed to plead or lead expert evidence on foreign law and thus could not show a real prospect of success on appeal, and the trial judge was correct to refuse to entertain unpleaded foreign law or to adjourn the trial; costs were ordered to the Plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to the Plaintiffs, to be taxed if not agreed