PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

The summons for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the 3rd defendant lacked locus standi to appeal the August Order (which made no order against him), and alternatively, even if locus existed the extension would be refused: the delay of eight months was substantial, the reason for delay (late covert recording) was unsatisfactory and could have been obtained earlier, the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall (would not have materially affected the judge on the pleaded 2009 representations), and allowing the appeal would cause significant prejudice to respondents; costs were ordered against the applicant.

Citation
PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd; 2nd Plaintiff: Pacific Harbour Special Holdings Limited; 1st Defendant: Winson Federal Limited; 2nd Defendant: Frederick Kan Ka Chong (executor of the Estate of Cho Yuk Kei Carlos); 3rd Defendant: Cho Woon Ming Vincent; 4th Defendant: International Hoteliers & Associates Limited; 5th Defendant: Up Speed Investments Limited; 6th Defendant: Ranmark Investments Limited; 7th Defendant: Furama (Shenyang) Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 August 2015
Case Number
HCMP1285/2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Summary Judgment (hca 1257/2013) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Judgment on Summons
Outcome
3rd defendant's summons for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Locus Standi, Summary Judgment, Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Specific Performance
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Appeals Extension of Time Locus Standi Summary Judgment Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall) Specific Performance

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Harbor Advisors Pte Ltd

1st Plaintiff

Pacific Harbour Special Holdings Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Winson Federal Limited

1st Defendant

Frederick Kan Ka Chong (executor of the Estate of Cho Yuk Kei Carlos)

2nd Defendant

Cho Woon Ming Vincent

3rd Defendant

International Hoteliers & Associates Limited

4th Defendant

Up Speed Investments Limited

5th Defendant

Ranmark Investments Limited

6th Defendant

Furama (Shenyang) Company Limited

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From Summary Judgment (hca 1257/2013) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Judgment on Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd defendant has locus standi to appeal the August 2014 order
  2. 2 Whether time should be extended to permit an out‑of‑time appeal
  3. 3 Admissibility of fresh evidence (audio recording) under Ladd v Marshall

Ratio Decidendi

The summons for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the 3rd defendant lacked locus standi to appeal the August Order (which made no order against him), and alternatively, even if locus existed the extension would be refused: the delay of eight months was substantial, the reason for delay (late covert recording) was unsatisfactory and could have been obtained earlier, the proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy Ladd v Marshall (would not have materially affected the judge on the pleaded 2009 representations), and allowing the appeal would cause significant prejudice to respondents; costs were ordered against the applicant.

Court Disposition

3rd defendant's summons for extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for extension of time to appeal dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event: 3rd defendant to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the summons