伍學紅 對 梅力文及另一人

伍學紅 對 梅力文及另一人

The court refused the application to extend time because the appellant gave no adequate explanation for the substantial delay, failed to show special circumstances or any real prospect of success in showing misrepresentation, and the consent order contained a clear written provision that contradicted the appellant's allegations; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs immediately.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 1332
Parties
Plaintiff: NG HOK HUNG; First Defendant (stayed): MUI LIK MAN WILFRED; Second Defendant: HOSPITAL AUTHORITY
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
DCPI2532/2014
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Civil Damages / Appeal Against Consent Order — Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (out‑of‑time Appeal)
Outcome
Out‑of‑time appeal dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Consent Order, Misrepresentation, Costs Assessment, Legal Aid First Charge
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Costs Contract/consent Orders Legal Aid Extension of Time Consent Order Misrepresentation Costs Assessment +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG HOK HUNG

Plaintiff

MUI LIK MAN WILFRED

First Defendant (stayed)

HOSPITAL AUTHORITY

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Civil Damages / Appeal Against Consent Order — Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (out‑of‑time Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to allow an out‑of‑time appeal
  2. 2 Whether the consent order could be set aside for alleged misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the application to extend time because the appellant gave no adequate explanation for the substantial delay, failed to show special circumstances or any real prospect of success in showing misrepresentation, and the consent order contained a clear written provision that contradicted the appellant's allegations; accordingly the out‑of‑time appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs immediately.

Court Disposition

Out‑of‑time appeal dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Out‑of‑time appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the second defendant's (Hospital Authority) costs of this appeal immediately.