厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

The summonses were dismissed because the court exercised its discretion to refuse extension of time and refusal to stay the disclosure order on the ground that such relief should not be granted by the Court of First Instance absent prior grant of leave to appeal, and that applications to stay or extend time in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
厦門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 厦門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd Defendant; 4th Defendant: 4th Defendant; 5th Defendant: 5th Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2011
Case Number
HCA961/2008
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings / Chambers Ruling on Summonses (application to Extend Time and to Stay Discovery)
Outcome
Both summonses dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to File Defence, Stay Pending Appeal, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Stay of Disclosure Order, Discretionary Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Arbitration Disclosure/discovery Extension of Time to File Defence Stay Pending Appeal Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Stay of Disclosure Order +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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant

4th Defendant

4th Defendant

5th Defendant

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications in Civil Proceedings / Chambers Ruling on Summonses (application to Extend Time and to Stay Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of First Instance should extend time for filing defences pending applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the disclosure/discovery order should be stayed pending an application for leave to appeal and any subsequent appeal
  3. 3 Whether such applications should be determined by the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The summonses were dismissed because the court exercised its discretion to refuse extension of time and refusal to stay the disclosure order on the ground that such relief should not be granted by the Court of First Instance absent prior grant of leave to appeal, and that applications to stay or extend time in the context of pending leave applications are more appropriately determined by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Both summonses dismissed.

Orders

  • Both summonses dismissed
  • The costs of the two summonses are to be paid by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and by the 3rd to 5th Defendants respectively to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed