CLARE HOLLINGWORTH v. THOMAS EDWARDS JUSON
- Citation
- CLARE HOLLINGWORTH v. THOMAS EDWARDS JUSON
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 2 March 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal) Application for Extension of Time / Interim Application (extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal)
- Case number
- HCMP356/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 2 March 2007
- Posture
- Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal) Application for Extension of Time / Interim Application (extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal)
- Case number
- HCMP356/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Extension of time was granted because the defendant had a bona fide intention to appeal, had filed a notice within the prescribed period albeit in the wrong registry, the mistake was not intentional and the defendant acted promptly on discovering the error; accordingly the court extended time to 9 March 2007 and ordered costs in the cause.
Court disposition
Extension of time granted to file and serve the notice of appeal by 9 March 2007; costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal.
Orders
- Grant extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal before Friday 9 March 2007
- Costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal
02
Material facts
Parties
Clare Hollingworth
Plaintiff (respondent) Counsel: Mr. Benjamin Ridgeon (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert)Thomas Edwards Juson (also known as Ted Thomas)
Defendant (applicant) Counsel: Applicant in personAmounts and remedies
- Extension Days: 7
03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal) Application for Extension of Time / Interim Application (extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to grant extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal
- 02
Whether an inadvertent filing in the wrong court constitutes an excusable mistake warranting extension
- 03
Whether costs of the extension application should be reserved (in the cause)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Defendant intended to appeal and filed a notice of appeal within time but mistakenly filed it under the High Court action rather than as an appeal in the Court of Appeal; the mistake was not intentional and he applied promptly upon discovery; seeks extension to file and serve the proper notice by 9 March 2007.
- Respondent
- Plaintiff sought an adjournment of the application for full argument (implicitly to challenge the grant of extension); argued that the application should be argued rather than determined summarily.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court of Appeal procedural discretion / civil procedure principles
Court has a discretion to extend time for filing where the applicant acted promptly and the delay is excusable.
- 02
Civil procedure principles on costs
Costs of interlocutory applications are normally dealt with by order and may be reserved to the cause of the appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Extension of time was granted because the defendant had a bona fide intention to appeal, had filed a notice within the prescribed period albeit in the wrong registry, the mistake was not intentional and the defendant acted promptly on discovering the error; accordingly the court extended time to 9 March 2007 and ordered costs in the cause.
Obiter and limits
- An adjournment for argument of the extension application would be a waste of time as the merits of the appeal can be fully canvassed at the appeal itself.
- The procedural error of filing in the wrong court registry, when promptly corrected, does not automatically defeat an appellant's right to an appeal.
Court disposition
Extension of time granted to file and serve the notice of appeal by 9 March 2007; costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal.
- Grant extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal before Friday 9 March 2007
- Costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 2 March 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 2 March 2007
bjbj HCMP 356/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 356 OF 2007 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA No. 249 of 2006)
BETWEEN Clare Hollingworth Plaintiff (Respondent) and Thomas Edwards Juson also known as Ted Thomas Defendant (Applicant) Before : Hon Cheung JA in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing : 2 March 2007 Date of Decision : 2 March 2007
D E C I S I O N
AUTONUMOUT I granted the defendant extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal before Friday, 9 March 2007 and ordered the costs of the application to be in the cause of the appeal.
AUTONUMOUT The defendant had always intended to lodge an appeal against the judgment of Chu J dated 17 January 2007 which was sealed on 23 January 2007. He actually filed a notice of appeal within time on 30 January 2007. However the filing was made under the High Court action instead of under an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The mistake cannot be intentional. As soon as the defendant realised the mistake he took out the present application.
AUTONUMOUT The plaintiff wished to adjourn the defendant s application for argument. In my view this would be a waste of time. The merits of the appeal can be fully canvassed at the appeal itself. (Peter Cheung) Justice of Appeal Applicant, in person, present Mr. Benjamin Ridgeon of Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the Respondent
PAGE - A 1udk 1udk
Q
R
S
T U V (#p# (#p# zvmh (#p# r p# r p# "@AB9D / Jz @m2z ]C]6 uxB26I ]C]6 & 6" abc-HCMP-cheung.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.