CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. KAM YUEN ELECTRONICS PLASTIC LTD.

CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. KAM YUEN ELECTRONICS PLASTIC LTD.

The summons for leave to file an affirmation in reply out of time was dismissed because the applicant's 7–8 month delay was not sufficiently justified; in committal proceedings the court will not permit uncertainty and will refuse to exercise discretion to extend time where grounds are inadequate.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. KAM YUEN ELECTRONICS PLASTIC LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff: Cedar Base Electronic Ltd.; Defendant: Kam Yuen Electronics Plastic Limited; Respondent: Wong Chak Ka
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 December 1999
Case Number
HCA755/1999
Procedural Posture
Sequestration and Committal Proceedings / Application for Leave to File Affirmation in Reply Out of Time (interlocutory Summons)
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Committal, Leave to File Out of Time, Delay, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Contempt of Court Enforcement Proceedings Sequestration Committal Leave to File Out of Time Delay Costs

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cedar Base Electronic Ltd.

Plaintiff

Kam Yuen Electronics Plastic Limited

Defendant

Wong Chak Ka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration and Committal Proceedings / Application for Leave to File Affirmation in Reply Out of Time (interlocutory Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to file an affirmation in reply out of time
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's delay was adequately explained
  3. 3 Appropriate judicial approach in committal proceedings regarding uncertainty and supervision

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for leave to file an affirmation in reply out of time was dismissed because the applicant's 7–8 month delay was not sufficiently justified; in committal proceedings the court will not permit uncertainty and will refuse to exercise discretion to extend time where grounds are inadequate.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents