MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER

MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER

Majority (Kempster and Macdougall JJ.A.) held that, on the facts, it was just to enlarge time and grant leave to appeal out of time against the 12 December 1988 order refusing a stay because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case and gave an understandable reason for delay (awaiting French jurisdiction decision); however the majority refused extension and leave out of time in respect of the 17 and 22 November 1988 orders for which no sufficient justification was shown. A dissenting judgment (Clough J.A.) would have refused extension on grounds of deliberate and inexcusable delay and unacceptable conduct by the applicant's lawyers.

Citation
MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Mioko Sakurada Louvet; 1st Respondent/applicant: Louis Aristide Charles Louvet; 2nd Respondent: Dorothy Poon Hing Chow
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 1989
Case Number
HCMP379/1989
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal — Appeal From District Court/high Court Transfer / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay and Related Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application partly allowed. Time enlarged and leave to appeal out of time granted against the 12 December 1988 order refusing a stay; application for leave out of time in respect of the 17 and 22 November 1988 orders dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Proceedings, Lis Alibi Pendens, Jurisdiction, Adjournment, Compliance With Procedural Time Limits
Source Language
EN
Family Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Appellate Practice Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Stay of Proceedings Lis Alibi Pendens +3 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mioko Sakurada Louvet

Petitioner

Louis Aristide Charles Louvet

1st Respondent/applicant

Dorothy Poon Hing Chow

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal — Appeal From District Court/high Court Transfer / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Stay and Related Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time should be enlarged to seek leave to appeal against the District Court order refusing a stay
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted against orders refusing adjournments and leave to file an Answer out of time
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has shown satisfactory reasons for delay and a good arguable case

Ratio Decidendi

Majority (Kempster and Macdougall JJ.A.) held that, on the facts, it was just to enlarge time and grant leave to appeal out of time against the 12 December 1988 order refusing a stay because the applicant demonstrated a good arguable case and gave an understandable reason for delay (awaiting French jurisdiction decision); however the majority refused extension and leave out of time in respect of the 17 and 22 November 1988 orders for which no sufficient justification was shown. A dissenting judgment (Clough J.A.) would have refused extension on grounds of deliberate and inexcusable delay and unacceptable conduct by the applicant's lawyers.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed. Time enlarged and leave to appeal out of time granted against the 12 December 1988 order refusing a stay; application for leave out of time in respect of the 17 and 22 November 1988 orders dismissed.

Orders

  • Time enlarged for filing Notice of Appeal against order of 12 December 1988; leave to appeal granted out of time against the 12 December 1988 order refusing a stay
  • Notice of Appeal to be lodged before 4 pm on Friday 12 May