CHUNG FAI ENGINEERING CO. (a firm) v. MAXWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

CHUNG FAI ENGINEERING CO. (a firm) v. MAXWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Extension of time was granted because the delay was short, the applicant acted promptly once correct advice was received, there was no significant prejudice to the respondent, and the statutory rule (s31(1) High Court Ordinance with Order 64 r.1(1)) supported the applicant's position that time did not run during August; therefore interests of justice required the extension absent a clear absence of merit in the proposed appeal.

Citation
CHUNG FAI ENGINEERING CO. (a firm) v. MAXWELL ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Chung Fai Engineering Company (a firm); Respondent/defendant: Maxwell Engineering Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Case Number
HCMP4473/2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal (in Chambers) Hearing of Summons Inter Partes
Outcome
Extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Time Limits for Appeal, High Court Ordinance S31(1), Stay of Execution, Dishonoured Cheque
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Appeals Extension of Time Time Limits for Appeal High Court Ordinance S31(1) Stay of Execution Dishonoured Cheque

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

Parties

Chung Fai Engineering Company (a firm)

Appellant/plaintiff

Maxwell Engineering Company Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Serve Notice of Appeal (interlocutory) / Court of Appeal (in Chambers) Hearing of Summons Inter Partes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for serving a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the time for service ran during August in light of High Court Ordinance s31(1) and related rules
  3. 3 Whether the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success such that extension should be refused

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was granted because the delay was short, the applicant acted promptly once correct advice was received, there was no significant prejudice to the respondent, and the statutory rule (s31(1) High Court Ordinance with Order 64 r.1(1)) supported the applicant's position that time did not run during August; therefore interests of justice required the extension absent a clear absence of merit in the proposed appeal.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted

Orders

  • Chung Fai Engineering Company's time for serving the notice of appeal is extended to 1 December 2000.