RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.

RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.

The court held Ord.59 r.13 applies (or its principles should be adopted); "the court below" in Ord.59 r.14(4) means the particular judge who made the order so the present judge lacked jurisdiction absent impossibility or impracticability to apply to that judge; on the merits, applying the balancing exercise, considering delay, the size of the costs, the respondents' undertaking to repay and the petitioner's failure to establish special grounds, irreparable injury or real hardship, the applications for stays were dismissed.

Citation
RE HY & HT LEE BROTHERS & CO. LTD.
Parties
Petitioner (hccw 275/1998): HY & HT Lee Brothers & Company Limited; Petitioner (hccw 467/1998): M.W. Lee & Sons Enterprises Limited; 1st Respondent: 1st Respondent; 2nd Respondent: 2nd Respondent; 3rd Respondent: 3rd Respondent; Official Receiver: Official Receiver
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 November 2000
Case Number
HCCW275/1998
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Applications for Stay of Taxation and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Taxation of Costs, Jurisdiction to Hear Stay Applications, Interpretation of Court Rules
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Law Stay of Execution Taxation of Costs Jurisdiction to Hear Stay Applications Interpretation of Court Rules

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 8 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HY & HT Lee Brothers & Company Limited

Petitioner (hccw 275/1998)

M.W. Lee & Sons Enterprises Limited

Petitioner (hccw 467/1998)

1st Respondent

1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

2nd Respondent

3rd Respondent

3rd Respondent

Official Receiver

Official Receiver

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Applications for Stay of Taxation and Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applications were made pursuant to Ord.59 r.13
  2. 2 Whether a judge other than the trial judge of the court below has jurisdiction to hear the applications or whether "the court below" means the individual judge
  3. 3 Whether a stay of taxation of costs should be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The court held Ord.59 r.13 applies (or its principles should be adopted); "the court below" in Ord.59 r.14(4) means the particular judge who made the order so the present judge lacked jurisdiction absent impossibility or impracticability to apply to that judge; on the merits, applying the balancing exercise, considering delay, the size of the costs, the respondents' undertaking to repay and the petitioner's failure to establish special grounds, irreparable injury or real hardship, the applications for stays were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed the applications for a stay of taxation and for a stay of execution of taxed costs pending the appeals (CACV 307/1999 and CACV 328/1999)