WONG WING WAH v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

WONG WING WAH v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Extension under s14(5B) refused because although the court adopts the 'unable to' meaning of 'prevented', applicant had been able to instruct solicitors and had not shown she was unable to lodge appeals within the statutory month; relief under s14(1B) refused because applicant failed to prove financial hardship and did not meet s14(1A) requirements for postponement; procedural misuse of expedited originating summons was noted but no separate sanction given as claim dismissed on merits.

Citation
[2018] HKDC 286
Parties
Intended Appellant: WONG WING WAH; Intended Respondent: THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
DCMP3454/2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (stamp Duty Ordinance) / Originating Summons (application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Originating summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Postponement of Payment, Hardship, S14(1 B), S14(5 B), Procedural Compliance (originating Summons Form)
Source Language
EN
Stamp Duty Taxation Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Time Postponement of Payment Hardship S14(1 B) +2 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG WING WAH

Intended Appellant

THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Intended Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (stamp Duty Ordinance) / Originating Summons (application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was 'prevented' by illness from lodging an appeal within the one month period under s14(5B) of the Stamp Duty Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under s14(1B) to allow appeals without payment or on security because payment would impose hardship
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with s14(1A) requirements for postponement and whether bank guarantees could have been provided in time

Ratio Decidendi

Extension under s14(5B) refused because although the court adopts the 'unable to' meaning of 'prevented', applicant had been able to instruct solicitors and had not shown she was unable to lodge appeals within the statutory month; relief under s14(1B) refused because applicant failed to prove financial hardship and did not meet s14(1A) requirements for postponement; procedural misuse of expedited originating summons was noted but no separate sanction given as claim dismissed on merits.

Court Disposition

Originating summons dismissed.

Orders

  • Originating summons dismissed.
  • Costs to the Collector with a certificate for counsel, summarily assessed at HK$22,274 payable forthwith by Madam Wong