ACLS v. HSBTL

ACLS v. HSBTL

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge properly exercised his case management discretion in adjourning the strike out application to be heard with the substantive trial: the matter was ready for trial, disputed factual issues required oral evidence and cross-examination, the judge's decision was not plainly wrong, and the appeal was therefore without reasonable prospects of success.

Citation
ACLS v. HSBTL
Parties
Plaintiff: ACLS; Defendant (administrator Pendente Lite): HSBTL; 1st Intervener: AYL; 2nd Intervener: ALSH; 3rd Intervener: CPC; 4th Intervener: AC
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 December 2011
Case Number
HCMP1937/2011
Procedural Posture
Inheritance/maintenance Claim Under Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance; Interlocutory Strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Application) From Case Management Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs and procedural orders made against the applicants (2nd to 4th interveners).
Legal Topics
Maintenance Under S3(1)(ix) of Cap.481, Strike Out Application, Case Management Discretion, Leave to Appeal, Civil Justice Reform Objectives
Source Language
EN
Inheritance Law Probate Civil Procedure Appeal Family Provision Claims Maintenance Under S3(1)(ix) of Cap.481 Strike Out Application Case Management Discretion +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACLS

Plaintiff

HSBTL

Defendant (administrator Pendente Lite)

AYL

1st Intervener

ALSH

2nd Intervener

CPC

3rd Intervener

AC

4th Intervener

Procedural Posture

Inheritance/maintenance Claim Under Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance; Interlocutory Strike Out Application and Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (paper Application) From Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a strike out application should be heard separately before trial or adjourned to be heard with the substantive trial
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff, a grandchild, satisfies s3(1)(ix) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance as a person 'being maintained' by the deceased so as to warrant maintenance for education
  3. 3 Whether the judge's case management decision to adjourn interlocutory dispute to trial is plainly wrong and therefore appealable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge properly exercised his case management discretion in adjourning the strike out application to be heard with the substantive trial: the matter was ready for trial, disputed factual issues required oral evidence and cross-examination, the judge's decision was not plainly wrong, and the appeal was therefore without reasonable prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs and procedural orders made against the applicants (2nd to 4th interveners).

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Order under Order 59 rule 2A(8) Rules of the High Court: no party may request reconsideration at an oral hearing under rule 2A(7)