QUENTIN KEITH HILLS v. MARLENE RITA WITTMAN

QUENTIN KEITH HILLS v. MARLENE RITA WITTMAN

The 23 October 2007 order was not an 'unless' order within the strict sense; the defendant's delay was not excusable because she failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the litigation and solicitor error did not sufficiently excuse the delay; the proposed defence had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore no extension of time was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
QUENTIN KEITH HILLS v. MARLENE RITA WITTMAN
Parties
Plaintiff: Quentin Keith Hills; Defendant: Marlene Rita Wittman
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2008
Case Number
HCMP340/2008
Procedural Posture
Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From HCA No.2149 of 2006) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and to Set Aside Judgment; Final Decision on Appeal Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Defend, Garnishee Order, Extension of Time, Unless Order, Setting Aside Judgment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Banking Appeal Summary Judgment Leave to Defend Garnishee Order Extension of Time +2 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quentin Keith Hills

Plaintiff

Marlene Rita Wittman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Proceedings (intended Appeal From HCA No.2149 of 2006) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal and to Set Aside Judgment; Final Decision on Appeal Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 23 October 2007 order was an 'unless' order attracting the strict test for setting aside judgment
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's failure to pay into court was excusable or contumelious
  3. 3 Whether solicitor error justified an extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The 23 October 2007 order was not an 'unless' order within the strict sense; the defendant's delay was not excusable because she failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the litigation and solicitor error did not sufficiently excuse the delay; the proposed defence had no reasonable prospect of success; therefore no extension of time was granted and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs