曲秀紅 對 何佩佩及另一人

曲秀紅 對 何佩佩及另一人

Extension of time was refused because the oral orders took immediate effect on 26 October 2022, the applicant's delay of about three months lacked an acceptable explanation (mere misunderstanding of procedure), and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospects since the registrar's decisions to exclude improperly filed materials, to strike out a non-compliant subpoena application, and to limit expert evidence were correct and justified; accordingly the application for late permission to appeal was denied and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 921
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): 曲秀紅; Defendant (respondent): 何佩佩; Defendant (respondent): 沈以章
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2023
Case Number
DCPI564/2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Against Registrar's Interlocutory Orders
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Striking Out Evidence, Disclosure, Subpoena, Expert Witness Directions
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Appeals Personal Injury Evidence Expert Evidence Extension of Time Striking Out Evidence Disclosure +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

曲秀紅

Plaintiff (appellant)

何佩佩

Defendant (respondent)

沈以章

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Interlocutory Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Against Registrar's Interlocutory Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file appeal against the registrar's oral orders dated 26 October 2022
  2. 2 Whether the registrar was correct to exclude the witness statement filed 2 August 2022
  3. 3 Whether the registrar was correct to strike out the subpoena/application filed 19 August 2022

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the oral orders took immediate effect on 26 October 2022, the applicant's delay of about three months lacked an acceptable explanation (mere misunderstanding of procedure), and the proposed appeal had no realistic prospects since the registrar's decisions to exclude improperly filed materials, to strike out a non-compliant subpoena application, and to limit expert evidence were correct and justified; accordingly the application for late permission to appeal was denied and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Refused permission to file the appeal out of time
  • Confirmed exclusion of the witness statement filed 2 August 2022