JOYFUL SPARKLE CO LTD v. NG PIK CHU t/a SHAN YAU CO

JOYFUL SPARKLE CO LTD v. NG PIK CHU t/a SHAN YAU CO

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real or reasonable prospect of success on the merits regarding the alleged HK$101,800 rent shortfall, failed to address adequately the reasons for absence at trial, and the objective evidence and parties' subsequent conduct supported the Defendant's case; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under section 63A(2) Cap.336 to refuse leave.

Citation
JOYFUL SPARKLE CO LTD v. NG PIK CHU t/a SHAN YAU CO
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Case Number
DCCJ1881/2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Judgment (judgment Given After Trial) / Leave to Appeal Application (summons Dated 27 February 2012)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; summons dated 27 February 2012 dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Default Judgment Vs Judgment After Trial, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appeals Landlord and Tenant District Court Rules Setting Aside Judgment Leave to Appeal Default Judgment Vs Judgment After Trial Costs Assessment

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

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Set Aside Judgment (judgment Given After Trial) / Leave to Appeal Application (summons Dated 27 February 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to challenge refusal to set aside a judgment given after trial
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff has a real or reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the alleged rent shortfall of HK$101,800
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff provided adequate reasons for absence at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real or reasonable prospect of success on the merits regarding the alleged HK$101,800 rent shortfall, failed to address adequately the reasons for absence at trial, and the objective evidence and parties' subsequent conduct supported the Defendant's case; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under section 63A(2) Cap.336 to refuse leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; summons dated 27 February 2012 dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 27 February 2012 dismissed and leave to appeal refused under section 63A(2) District Court Ordinance Cap.336
  • Costs of and occasioned by this application to the Defendant with certificate for counsel by way of summary assessment in the sum of HK$20,730 payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant forthwith