CLARE HOLLINGWORTH v. THOMAS EDWARDS JUSON

CLARE HOLLINGWORTH v. THOMAS EDWARDS JUSON

Extension of time was granted because the defendant had a bona fide intention to appeal, had filed a notice within the prescribed period albeit in the wrong registry, the mistake was not intentional and the defendant acted promptly on discovering the error; accordingly the court extended time to 9 March 2007 and ordered costs in the cause.

Citation
CLARE HOLLINGWORTH v. THOMAS EDWARDS JUSON
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Clare Hollingworth; Defendant (applicant): Thomas Edwards Juson (also known as Ted Thomas)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 March 2007
Case Number
HCMP356/2007
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal) Application for Extension of Time / Interim Application (extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal)
Outcome
Extension of time granted to file and serve the notice of appeal by 9 March 2007; costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Notice of Appeal, Adjournment, Procedural Irregularity (wrong Court Filing)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Extension of Time Notice of Appeal Adjournment Procedural Irregularity (wrong Court Filing)

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clare Hollingworth

Plaintiff (respondent)

Thomas Edwards Juson (also known as Ted Thomas)

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal) Application for Extension of Time / Interim Application (extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether an inadvertent filing in the wrong court constitutes an excusable mistake warranting extension
  3. 3 Whether costs of the extension application should be reserved (in the cause)

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was granted because the defendant had a bona fide intention to appeal, had filed a notice within the prescribed period albeit in the wrong registry, the mistake was not intentional and the defendant acted promptly on discovering the error; accordingly the court extended time to 9 March 2007 and ordered costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted to file and serve the notice of appeal by 9 March 2007; costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal.

Orders

  • Grant extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal before Friday 9 March 2007
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal