YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS (A FIRM)

YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS (A FIRM)

The court held that an extension of time to apply to fix a hearing date was unnecessary because the appeal had been validly set down and Order 59 r.5(2) requires appeals to be heard according to the list regardless of a separate application to fix dates; the application to amend the defendant's name was refused as excessively late and would amount to an abuse of process; accordingly no order as to costs was made (order nisi).

Citation
YU MAN v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS (A FIRM)
Parties
Plaintiff (applicant): Yu Man; Defendant (respondent): PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 June 2006
Case Number
HCMP71/2006
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application Decided (extension of Time to Fix Hearing Date; Application to Amend Defendant Name)
Outcome
Extension of time to apply to fix hearing date refused as unnecessary; application to amend defendant name refused; no order as to costs (order nisi).
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Practice Directions, Dormant Appeal, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
ET
Civil Procedure Appeal Company Law Costs Extension of Time Practice Directions Dormant Appeal Amendment of Pleadings +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yu Man

Plaintiff (applicant)

PricewaterhouseCoopers (A Firm)

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application Decided (extension of Time to Fix Hearing Date; Application to Amend Defendant Name)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time was required to fix a hearing date for an appeal set down in CACV 79/2003
  2. 2 Whether Practice Direction 4.1/3 para.9 imposes a mandatory deadline to apply to fix hearing dates
  3. 3 Whether the applicant may amend the name of the defendant in HCA 389/2001 at this late stage

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an extension of time to apply to fix a hearing date was unnecessary because the appeal had been validly set down and Order 59 r.5(2) requires appeals to be heard according to the list regardless of a separate application to fix dates; the application to amend the defendant's name was refused as excessively late and would amount to an abuse of process; accordingly no order as to costs was made (order nisi).

Court Disposition

Extension of time to apply to fix hearing date refused as unnecessary; application to amend defendant name refused; no order as to costs (order nisi).

Orders

  • Refuse order for extension of time to apply to fix hearing date for CACV 79/2003 as unnecessary
  • Refuse application to amend the name of the defendant in HCA 389/2001