LUK KA CHEUNG v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

LUK KA CHEUNG v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant demonstrated a substantial delay with an unsatisfactory explanation and the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success; costs were ordered against the applicant and he was barred from applying for a hearing to reconsider under Order 59 Rule...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LUK KA CHEUNG v. MARKET MISCONDUCT TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Luk Ka Cheung; 1st Respondent: Market Misconduct Tribunal; 2nd Respondent: The Financial Secretary
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 May 2011
Case Number
HCMP326/2011
Procedural Posture
Intended Appeal Under S.266 Securities and Futures Ordinance Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (decided on Paper)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.
Legal Topics
Insider Dealing, Market Misconduct, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Sanctions, Connected Person (s.247(1)(c))
Source Language
en
Securities Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Regulatory Enforcement Insider Dealing Market Misconduct Leave to Appeal Out of Time Sanctions +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luk Ka Cheung

Applicant

Market Misconduct Tribunal

1st Respondent

The Financial Secretary

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Intended Appeal Under S.266 Securities and Futures Ordinance Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time (decided on Paper)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay
  3. 3 Whether the proposed grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant demonstrated a substantial delay with an unsatisfactory explanation and the proposed grounds lacked reasonable prospects of success; costs were ordered against the applicant and he was barred from applying for a hearing to reconsider under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal out of time refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal out of time refused.
  • Costs of the application to be borne by the applicant on a provisional basis.