CHOW HING ERIC v. WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS

CHOW HING ERIC v. WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS

Both summonses were dismissed; the court found no ground to refer the matter of costs to taxation and exercised its discretion to order payment out of the sum paid into court of $25,000 for costs thrown away by the adjournment and to order a further $25,000 to be paid by the applicant to the respondents as costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHOW HING ERIC v. WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: CHOW HING ERIC; 1st Respondent: WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: MA KWOK PO; 3rd Respondent: YAU WAI KEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2009
Case Number
HCMP483/2009
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal (extension of Time and Fresh Evidence) / Assessment of Costs After Hearing and Dismissal of Summonses
Outcome
Both summonses dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Adduction of Fresh Evidence, Assessment of Costs, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Evidence Extension of Time to Appeal Adduction of Fresh Evidence Assessment of Costs Taxation of 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHOW HING ERIC

Applicant

WIDE LAND PURCHASING CENTRE LIMITED

1st Respondent

MA KWOK PO

2nd Respondent

YAU WAI KEUNG

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings on Intended Appeal (extension of Time and Fresh Evidence) / Assessment of Costs After Hearing and Dismissal of Summonses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether to grant leave to adduce fresh evidence at intended appeal
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs and in what quantum

Ratio Decidendi

Both summonses were dismissed; the court found no ground to refer the matter of costs to taxation and exercised its discretion to order payment out of the sum paid into court of $25,000 for costs thrown away by the adjournment and to order a further $25,000 to be paid by the applicant to the respondents as costs.

Court Disposition

Both summonses dismissed; costs awarded to the respondents

Orders

  • Order that the sum of $25,000 paid into court in respect of the adjourned hearing on 9 April 2009 be paid out to the respondents
  • Order that the applicant pay a further sum of $25,000 to the respondents as costs