倪雪嬌 對 新時代軟件開發（香港）有限公司及另二人

倪雪嬌 對 新時代軟件開發（香港）有限公司及另二人

Applicant's delay of about two months was not reasonably explained; the proffered new witness statement failed the Ladd v Marshall test (could have been produced earlier and contradicted applicant's pleadings) and did not establish urgency or real risk of dissipation of assets; therefore there was no reasonable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
倪雪嬌 對 新時代軟件開發（香港）有限公司及另二人
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: 倪雪嬌 (PATNAREE JIRABOVOLVANIT); 1st Defendant: 新時代軟件開發（香港）有限公司; 2nd Defendant: 童駿燊; 3rd Defendant: 陳奕華
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Case Number
DCCJ3562/2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Stay of Execution (post‑judgment) / Leave to Appeal (out of Time) Hearing and Application for Interim Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal and application for stay of execution dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Test for New Evidence, Urgency for Freezing Orders, Costs
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeals Injunctions Asset Freezing Orders Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Appeal Ladd V Marshall Test for New Evidence Urgency for Freezing Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

倪雪嬌 (PATNAREE JIRABOVOLVANIT)

Plaintiff/applicant

新時代軟件開發（香港）有限公司

1st Defendant

童駿燊

2nd Defendant

陳奕華

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and Stay of Execution (post‑judgment) / Leave to Appeal (out of Time) Hearing and Application for Interim Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant leave to appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence meets the Ladd v Marshall criteria
  3. 3 Whether the applicant proved urgency and risk of dissipation to justify proprietary injunction or freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's delay of about two months was not reasonably explained; the proffered new witness statement failed the Ladd v Marshall test (could have been produced earlier and contradicted applicant's pleadings) and did not establish urgency or real risk of dissipation of assets; therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal out of time and the stay were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal and application for stay of execution dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal (out of time) is dismissed
  • Application for stay of execution / interim injunction is dismissed