IAN LESLIE WILKINSON v. ENSEMBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

IAN LESLIE WILKINSON v. ENSEMBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Given the delay in production of some documents, the Master properly exercised discretion to grant an extension of time running from 14 August 1996 and to award costs limited to the application before him on that date; the order was neither unreasonable nor erroneous in law, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
IAN LESLIE WILKINSON v. ENSEMBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Parties
Appellant: Ian Leslie Wilkinson; Respondent: Ensemble Development Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 September 1996
Case Number
HCMP1493/1996
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings: Charging Order and Application for Sale Under Rules of the Supreme Court O.88 R.5(a); Appeal Against Master's Order / Appeal to High Court (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Production of Documents Under O.24 R.10, Costs Orders, Representation of Company by Non Solicitor
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Family Law Costs Company Procedure Extension of Time Production of Documents Under O.24 R.10 Costs Orders Representation of Company by Non Solicitor

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Leslie Wilkinson

Appellant

Ensemble Development Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings: Charging Order and Application for Sale Under Rules of the Supreme Court O.88 R.5(a); Appeal Against Master's Order / Appeal to High Court (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time for filing respondent's affidavit was properly granted
  2. 2 Whether production of documents under O.24 r.10 justified extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the Master's costs order was reasonable and lawful

Ratio Decidendi

Given the delay in production of some documents, the Master properly exercised discretion to grant an extension of time running from 14 August 1996 and to award costs limited to the application before him on that date; the order was neither unreasonable nor erroneous in law, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of Master O'Donnell dated 14 August 1996 affirmed