李文標及另三人 對 熊宏海及另五人

李文標及另三人 對 熊宏海及另五人

The court refused the extension because the applicant delayed 27 months without an acceptable explanation, the proposed grounds of appeal were not new and lacked reasonable prospects of success, and granting an extension would cause unfair prejudice to the respondents. Consequently the application to extend time was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 317
Parties
1st Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 1st Respondent (hccw 372/2014): Lee Man Biu; 2nd Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 2nd Respondent (hccw 372/2014): Yeung Chi Ling; 3rd Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 3rd Respondent (hccw 372/2014): Lee Ho Yin; 1st Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 1st Petitioner (hccw 372/2014): Hung Wan Hoi Gilbert; 2nd Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 2nd Petitioner (hccw 372/2014): Chau Tak Cheong; 3rd Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 3rd Petitioner (hccw 372/2014): Lee Che Fung; 4th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 4th Petitioner (hccw 372/2014): Cheng Pik Wan Stephine; 5th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 5th Petitioner (hccw 372/2014): Cheng Pik Yuk Rebecca; 6th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 4th Respondent (hccw 372/2014): Global Eco Resource Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 February 2021
Case Number
HCCW281/2014
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) Proceedings; Appeal Against Trial Judgment / Application to Extend Time to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application to extend time to appeal refused; summons dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs on indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice/oppression, Extension of Time to Appeal, Disclosure Orders, Costs Assessment
Source Language
ch
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeals Unfair Prejudice/oppression Extension of Time to Appeal Disclosure Orders Costs Assessment

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Man Biu

1st Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 1st Respondent (hccw 372/2014)

Yeung Chi Ling

2nd Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 2nd Respondent (hccw 372/2014)

Lee Ho Yin

3rd Petitioner (hccw 281/2014); 3rd Respondent (hccw 372/2014)

Hung Wan Hoi Gilbert

1st Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 1st Petitioner (hccw 372/2014)

Chau Tak Cheong

2nd Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 2nd Petitioner (hccw 372/2014)

Lee Che Fung

3rd Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 3rd Petitioner (hccw 372/2014)

Cheng Pik Wan Stephine

4th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 4th Petitioner (hccw 372/2014)

Cheng Pik Yuk Rebecca

5th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 5th Petitioner (hccw 372/2014)

Global Eco Resource Limited

6th Respondent (hccw 281/2014); 4th Respondent (hccw 372/2014)

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) Proceedings; Appeal Against Trial Judgment / Application to Extend Time to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing an appeal against the 16 July 2018 judgment
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for a 27-month delay
  3. 3 Whether the proposed grounds of appeal have a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the extension because the applicant delayed 27 months without an acceptable explanation, the proposed grounds of appeal were not new and lacked reasonable prospects of success, and granting an extension would cause unfair prejudice to the respondents. Consequently the application to extend time was dismissed and the applicant's summons set aside.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time to appeal refused; summons dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondents' costs on indemnity basis

Orders

  • Application to extend time to file appeal dismissed and summons set aside
  • Applicant (Lee Man Biu) ordered to pay respondents' costs on indemnity basis