YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER

YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the variation involved the insertion of a subsidiary already said to be included and included undertakings against disposal of assets, producing no demonstrable prejudice to applicants; given the nature of consent orders and the disproportionate costs and likely satellite litigation, leave was not justified.

Citation
YAU TAK v. YAU NGAI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1255/2007): YAU TAK; 1st Defendant (hca 1255/2007) and Party in HCA 1309/2007: YAU NGAI; 2nd Defendant (hca 1255/2007): YAU SIU CHAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2008
Case Number
HCMP765/2008
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time From Variation of a Consent Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Variation of Consent Order, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Costs Orders, Undertakings Regarding Disposal of Assets
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Corporate Assets Variation of Consent Order Leave to Appeal Out of Time Costs Orders Undertakings Regarding Disposal of Assets

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

Parties

YAU TAK

Plaintiff (hca 1255/2007)

YAU NGAI

1st Defendant (hca 1255/2007) and Party in HCA 1309/2007

YAU SIU CHAN

2nd Defendant (hca 1255/2007)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings; Application for Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time From Variation of a Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether a consent order may be varied and on what basis
  3. 3 Whether applicants were prejudiced by the variation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the variation involved the insertion of a subsidiary already said to be included and included undertakings against disposal of assets, producing no demonstrable prejudice to applicants; given the nature of consent orders and the disproportionate costs and likely satellite litigation, leave was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
  • No leave to appeal granted in respect of costs