吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人

吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人

The court granted an extension of time solely for the first plaintiff to appeal the civil restraint order because, despite the serious delay and lack of explanation, she demonstrated a reasonably arguable ground of appeal on whether the restriction order against her was justified; the court refused to extend time for appeals against the striking out orders because those strike-out decisions were plainly correct and lacked merit. The second plaintiff's application for extension was dismissed. The first plaintiff must serve and file a notice of appeal within seven days. Costs were awarded to defendants in the amounts assessed by the court with specific liabilities on the second plaintiff...

Citation
吳艷嫦及另一人 對 李雪芬主任及另一人
Parties
First Plaintiff: 吳艷嫦; Second Plaintiff: 鄭根容; First Defendant: 李雪芬主任; Second Defendant: 李日華律師
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 December 2012
Case Number
HCMP2274/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (extension of Time Application) / Application for Extension of Appeal Period Against Striking Out of Statement of Claim and Imposition of a Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Application partly allowed: extension of time granted to first plaintiff only for appeal against the restriction (civil restraint) order; second plaintiff's application dismissed; no extension for appeal against striking out orders.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Civil Restraint Order, Striking Out Claim, Abuse of Court Process, Costs Assessment
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Abuse of Process Administrative Law (pensions) Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Civil Restraint Order +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

吳艷嫦

First Plaintiff

鄭根容

Second Plaintiff

李雪芬主任

First Defendant

李日華律師

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (extension of Time Application) / Application for Extension of Appeal Period Against Striking Out of Statement of Claim and Imposition of a Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal period should be extended for appeals against an order striking out statements of claim and a civil restraint order
  2. 2 Whether the civil restraint (restriction) order against the first plaintiff was justified
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff's delay was excused by illness

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted an extension of time solely for the first plaintiff to appeal the civil restraint order because, despite the serious delay and lack of explanation, she demonstrated a reasonably arguable ground of appeal on whether the restriction order against her was justified; the court refused to extend time for appeals against the striking out orders because those strike-out decisions were plainly correct and lacked merit. The second plaintiff's application for extension was dismissed. The first plaintiff must serve and file a notice of appeal within seven days. Costs were awarded to defendants in the amounts assessed by the court with specific liabilities on the second plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: extension of time granted to first plaintiff only for appeal against the restriction (civil restraint) order; second plaintiff's application dismissed; no extension for appeal against striking out orders.

Orders

  • Extension of appeal period granted to first plaintiff only to appeal the restriction (civil restraint) order; first plaintiff must serve and file the notice of appeal within seven days
  • No extension of time granted for appeals against the orders striking out the statements of claim