LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS

The 24 April 2012 order relating only to costs of the unpursued striking-out application was interlocutory because it did not determine substantive rights; therefore the defendants needed to apply for leave within 14 days. The summons filed on 22 May 2012 was out of time, so the court lacked jurisdiction and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAI SIU WAI LOUIS lawful attorney of 譚翠好 v. HO KING YIN EDWIN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 3rd Defendant: LAM SHU KEE (3rd Defendant)
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2012
Case Number
DCCJ4041/2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave Application (chambers)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for being out of time; court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Time Limits for Appeal, Interlocutory Order, Striking Out, Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Leave to Appeal Time Limits for Appeal Interlocutory Order Striking Out Jurisdiction

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

LAM SHU KEE (3rd Defendant)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave Application (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants application for leave to appeal was filed within time
  2. 2 Whether the order made on 24 April 2012 was interlocutory or a final/non-interlocutory order determining substantive rights
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant leave where application was out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The 24 April 2012 order relating only to costs of the unpursued striking-out application was interlocutory because it did not determine substantive rights; therefore the defendants needed to apply for leave within 14 days. The summons filed on 22 May 2012 was out of time, so the court lacked jurisdiction and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed for being out of time; court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

Orders

  • Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction as it was filed out of time.
  • Costs of this application to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.