AU YEUNG YEE MAN, executrix of the estate of AU YEUNG WING HONG, deceased v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE (a bankrupt)

AU YEUNG YEE MAN, executrix of the estate of AU YEUNG WING HONG, deceased v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE (a bankrupt)

Leave to appeal was refused because the district judge properly exercised case management powers in staying the duplicative proceeding, the defendant as an undischarged bankrupt lacked independent capacity to prosecute the appeal and the trustee would not prosecute, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appellate intervention.

Citation
AU YEUNG YEE MAN, executrix of the estate of AU YEUNG WING HONG, deceased v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE (a bankrupt)
Parties
Plaintiff (executrix): AU YEUNG YEE MAN; Defendant (a Bankrupt): WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 April 2012
Case Number
HCMP323/2012
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Leave to Appeal Application Against District Court Case Management Order / Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Leave to Appeal, Case Management, Possession, Licence Revocation, Capacity of Bankrupt to Litigate
Source Language
EN
Succession/probate Property Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Appeal Stay of Proceedings Leave to Appeal Case Management +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AU YEUNG YEE MAN

Plaintiff (executrix)

WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

Defendant (a Bankrupt)

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Leave to Appeal Application Against District Court Case Management Order / Application for Leave to Appeal (renewed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a district court stay order made to avoid duplicity of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in principle or plainly misapplied discretion in granting the stay
  3. 3 Whether the defendant, as an undischarged bankrupt, retains capacity to prosecute the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the district judge properly exercised case management powers in staying the duplicative proceeding, the defendant as an undischarged bankrupt lacked independent capacity to prosecute the appeal and the trustee would not prosecute, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and did not present exceptional circumstances warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to be taxed
  • Order under O 59 r 2A(8) that the defendant may not request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral inter partes hearing