YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time and ordered that the costs of the extension application be costs in the appeal because if the defendants are right the substantive action will collapse and it is fair to defer costs until the appeal outcome; if defendants succeed they recover costs, if they lose they pay.

Citation
YEUNG YU CHUNG AND ANOTHER v. BASE KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent: YEUNG YU CHUNG; 2nd Plaintiff/2nd Respondent: SHUE KEE ENGINEERING LIMITED; 1st Defendant/applicant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant/applicant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 July 2008
Case Number
HCMP1155/2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From HCA No. 90 of 2008) / Application for Extension of Time; Interlocutory Costs Determination
Outcome
Extension of time granted; costs of the extension application ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Costs in Appeal, Interlocutory Application
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Extension of Time Costs in Appeal Interlocutory Application

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEUNG YU CHUNG

1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent

SHUE KEE ENGINEERING LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff/2nd Respondent

1st Defendant

1st Defendant/applicant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From HCA No. 90 of 2008) / Application for Extension of Time; Interlocutory Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to bring the intended appeal
  2. 2 Whether the costs of the extension application should be payable now or be costs in the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the substantive case may collapse such that costs allocation should await appeal outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to grant the extension of time and ordered that the costs of the extension application be costs in the appeal because if the defendants are right the substantive action will collapse and it is fair to defer costs until the appeal outcome; if defendants succeed they recover costs, if they lose they pay.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; costs of the extension application ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Extension of time granted.
  • Costs of the extension application to be costs in the appeal.