WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND ANOTHER v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND ANOTHER v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Leave to appeal was refused because the default judgment was regular (the master had ordered a 28-day extension and warned of judgment), the plaintiff failed to establish any binding agreement to suspend proceedings or to provide timely substantiating tax returns so the assessments were final under the IRO, and the plaintiff lacked a real prospect of success; absent error in principle the appellate court will not disturb the judge's discretion.

Citation
WONG YU CHO ROLLY t/a MARCO POLO AND ANOTHER v. INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Parties
Plaintiff (applicant): WONG YU CHO ROLLY trading as MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT; Defendant (respondent): INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 March 2006
Case Number
HCMP2032/2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal (renewed Leave Application From District Court Decision)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Finality of Tax Assessments, Service and Notice Requirements
Source Language
EN
Tax Civil Procedure Appeals Default Judgment Setting Aside Default Judgment Leave to Appeal Finality of Tax Assessments Service and Notice Requirements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG YU CHO ROLLY trading as MARCO POLO and CHINA OVERSEA TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT

Plaintiff (applicant)

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal (renewed Leave Application From District Court Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from Judge Chow's refusal to set aside default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was regular
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated a real prospect of success in defending the counterclaim in light of the Inland Revenue Ordinance provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the default judgment was regular (the master had ordered a 28-day extension and warned of judgment), the plaintiff failed to establish any binding agreement to suspend proceedings or to provide timely substantiating tax returns so the assessments were final under the IRO, and the plaintiff lacked a real prospect of success; absent error in principle the appellate court will not disturb the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused