KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

KAI SHING MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because on the material before the court the authorisation of Yu to represent the claimant was valid and, in any event, even if the authorisation had been invalid it would not have affected the adjudicator's lawful refusal to award the defendants' claimed costs; there is no arguable question of law with prospects of success under s28(1).

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2825
Parties
Claimant: Kai Shing Management Services Limited; 1st Defendant: Chan Yung; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Lai Kuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 2021
Case Number
HCSA25/2021
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Authority of Company Representative, Leave to Appeal, Costs Recovery, Verification of Corporate Documents
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Small Claims Costs Authority of Company Representative Leave to Appeal Costs Recovery Verification of Corporate Documents

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kai Shing Management Services Limited

Claimant

Chan Yung

1st Defendant

Cheung Lai Kuen

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Yu Tsz Wai was properly authorised to represent the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the adjudicator erred in refusing the defendants' application for costs
  3. 3 Whether there is a question of law sufficient to grant leave to appeal under s28(1) Cap 338

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because on the material before the court the authorisation of Yu to represent the claimant was valid and, in any event, even if the authorisation had been invalid it would not have affected the adjudicator's lawful refusal to award the defendants' claimed costs; there is no arguable question of law with prospects of success under s28(1).

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application dismissed