LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS

Because the respondents failed to comply with the court's directions to file and serve their affirmation within the prescribed time, offered no adequate explanation and did not propose an unless order with affidavit, the court was justified in making an unless order precluding them from adducing evidence unless they...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: LAI YUET CHUN; 1st Respondent: SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: POON HIN PONG; 3rd Respondent: LAU CHEUK LAM; 4th Respondent: LI OI LAN, TWINKLE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 May 2002
Case Number
HCCW186/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up (petition Under Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Application for Relief for Failure to Comply With Directions and Costs
Outcome
Unless the 2nd to 4th Respondents file and serve their affirmation in opposition by 4pm on 21 May 2002 they are not permitted to adduce any evidence in opposition to the 6th affirmation of Lai Yuet Chun dated 23 March 2002; costs awarded to the Petitioner as stated.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Affirmation in Opposition, Unless Order, Costs of Petition
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Winding Up Affirmation in Opposition Unless Order Costs of Petition

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAI YUET CHUN

Petitioner

SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent

POON HIN PONG

2nd Respondent

LAU CHEUK LAM

3rd Respondent

LI OI LAN, TWINKLE

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up (petition Under Companies Ordinance) / Interlocutory Application for Relief for Failure to Comply With Directions and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd to 4th Respondents' failure to file and serve their affirmation in opposition justified an unless order
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner was entitled to costs for the hearing and related summonses

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents failed to comply with the court's directions to file and serve their affirmation within the prescribed time, offered no adequate explanation and did not propose an unless order with affidavit, the court was justified in making an unless order precluding them from adducing evidence unless they complied by the specified date and in awarding costs to the petitioner for the hearing.

Court Disposition

Unless the 2nd to 4th Respondents file and serve their affirmation in opposition by 4pm on 21 May 2002 they are not permitted to adduce any evidence in opposition to the 6th affirmation of Lai Yuet Chun dated 23 March 2002; costs awarded to the Petitioner as stated.

Orders

  • Unless by 4pm on 21 May 2002 the 2nd to 4th Respondents file and serve their affirmation in opposition to the 6th affirmation of Lai Yuet Chun dated 23 March 2002 they shall not be permitted to adduce any evidence in opposition to that affirmation.
  • Petitioner to have costs of the hearing on 15 May 2002.