杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the registrar's directions were properly sent to the 3rd Respondent's Hong Kong address and he failed to comply with the directions in time; more fundamentally, the court's prior refusal to extend time was final so no appeal exists to which leave to appeal to the Court of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
杭州日月電器股份有限公司 v. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent: 3rd Respondent
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Case Number
HCMP2647/2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Following Refusal of Extension of Time / Decision on Notice of Motion (application Disposed on Paper)
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Service by Address, Costs Assessment, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Service of Process Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Service by Address Costs Assessment +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

3rd Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Following Refusal of Extension of Time / Decision on Notice of Motion (application Disposed on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd Respondent provided good reason for late request for oral hearing
  2. 2 Whether the registrar's directions were properly notified to the 3rd Respondent at his Hong Kong address
  3. 3 Whether a leave application to the Court of Final Appeal can stand where there is no appeal pending

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the registrar's directions were properly sent to the 3rd Respondent's Hong Kong address and he failed to comply with the directions in time; more fundamentally, the court's prior refusal to extend time was final so no appeal exists to which leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal could attach, rendering the Notice of Motion misconceived.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Motion dated 17 February 2015 dismissed
  • 3rd Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs, fixed at $37,900