SUN JIANGRONG v. SUN SHAOHUA AND ANOTHER

SUN JIANGRONG v. SUN SHAOHUA AND ANOTHER

Order 5(1) is sufficiently wide to permit the court to extend time in respect of a time stipulation contained in a final consent order; the consent order in this case did not constitute a true contract ousting the court's jurisdiction nor did it make time of the essence, and therefore leave to appeal against the extension was refused.

Citation
SUN JIANGRONG v. SUN SHAOHUA AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: 1st Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2012
Case Number
HCMP2598/2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time; Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal (application for Leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Functus Officio, Consent Order, Leave to Appeal, Order 5(1) Rules of the High Court
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Extension of Time Functus Officio Consent Order Leave to Appeal Order 5(1) Rules of the High Court

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

1st Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time; Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal (application for Leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under Order 5(1) to extend time where the time stipulation is contained in a final consent order
  2. 2 Whether the consent order constituted a true contract which ousted the court's jurisdiction to extend time
  3. 3 Whether the consent order rendered the court functus officio in respect of the time stipulation

Ratio Decidendi

Order 5(1) is sufficiently wide to permit the court to extend time in respect of a time stipulation contained in a final consent order; the consent order in this case did not constitute a true contract ousting the court's jurisdiction nor did it make time of the essence, and therefore leave to appeal against the extension was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused with costs