CHUNG MEI INDUSTRIES LTD v. SO KWOK KEUNG

CHUNG MEI INDUSTRIES LTD v. SO KWOK KEUNG

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's delay was substantial and unjustified, especially the inexcusable four‑week inactivity after the solicitor became aware on 29 April; the applicant had an adverse track record in the proceedings and the proposed appeal lacked real prospects of success; accordingly extension was refused and costs ordered personally against the defendant's solicitors on an indemnity basis.

Citation
CHUNG MEI INDUSTRIES LTD v. SO KWOK KEUNG
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Chung Mei Industries Limited; Defendant/applicant: So Kwok Keung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 2011
Case Number
HCMP961/2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Service of Order, Delay and Excuse, Interpretation of Contract, Advance Commission, Garnishee Order, Charging Order, Indemnity Costs, Solicitor Negligence/culpability
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Employment Law Enforcement Extension of Time to Appeal Service of Order +7 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chung Mei Industries Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

So Kwok Keung

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (extension of Time to Appeal) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an extension of time to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's delay was adequately explained and promptly remedied
  3. 3 Whether the proposed grounds of appeal have real prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's delay was substantial and unjustified, especially the inexcusable four‑week inactivity after the solicitor became aware on 29 April; the applicant had an adverse track record in the proceedings and the proposed appeal lacked real prospects of success; accordingly extension was refused and costs ordered personally against the defendant's solicitors on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs to be paid by the Defendant's solicitors personally, to be taxed on an indemnity basis.