CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Although the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional reasons for a full 21‑day extension (delay arising from counsel's holiday and internal drafting/approval failures), the court exercised its discretion to grant a short, specific extension to 4:30 p.m. on 28 September so the court can have full evidence on matters of public importance; costs were awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis because of respondent mismanagement.

Citation
CHO MAN KIT v. BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
Parties
Applicant: CHO MAN KIT; Respondent: BROADCASTING AUTHORITY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 September 2007
Case Number
HCAL69/2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Inter Partes Summons for Extension of Time (pre Hearing)
Outcome
Extension granted but limited; costs awarded to applicant on indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Affidavits and Evidence Filing Deadlines, Promptness in Judicial Review, Costs (indemnity), Case Management, Practice Directions
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Media/broadcasting Law Extension of Time Affidavits and Evidence Filing Deadlines Promptness in Judicial Review Costs (indemnity) +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHO MAN KIT

Applicant

BROADCASTING AUTHORITY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Inter Partes Summons for Extension of Time (pre Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time for the respondent to file evidence
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has shown exceptional circumstances to justify an extension under the Practice Directions
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded and at what scale

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional reasons for a full 21‑day extension (delay arising from counsel's holiday and internal drafting/approval failures), the court exercised its discretion to grant a short, specific extension to 4:30 p.m. on 28 September so the court can have full evidence on matters of public importance; costs were awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis because of respondent mismanagement.

Court Disposition

Extension granted but limited; costs awarded to applicant on indemnity basis

Orders

  • Extension granted until the close of the Registry at 4.30 p.m. on Friday 28 September
  • Costs awarded to the applicant on an indemnity basis