CHEUNG CHI PO v. KE JUN XIANG

CHEUNG CHI PO v. KE JUN XIANG

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's decision did not raise a question of law of great general or public importance but involved the proper exercise of judicial discretion; additionally the applicant failed to provide evidence of impecuniosity and full and frank disclosure before the lower...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEUNG CHI PO v. KE JUN XIANG
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Cheung Chi Po; Defendant (applicant): Ke Jun Xiang
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 July 2013
Case Number
FAMV37/2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal From Court of Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (leave Refused)
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Conditions Attached to Setting Aside, Promissory Note, Payment Into Court, Impecuniosity and Disclosure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Commercial Law Evidence Setting Aside Default Judgment Leave to Appeal Conditions Attached to Setting Aside Promissory Note +2 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Chi Po

Plaintiff (respondent)

Ke Jun Xiang

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal From Court of Appeal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may impose conditions when setting aside a regular/default judgment where the court is satisfied that the defendant has a defence with a real prospect of success
  2. 2 What conditions may properly be imposed and for what purposes
  3. 3 Whether a defendant's impecuniosity can excuse compliance with a financial condition and what evidential burden that imposes

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's decision did not raise a question of law of great general or public importance but involved the proper exercise of judicial discretion; additionally the applicant failed to provide evidence of impecuniosity and full and frank disclosure before the lower courts and therefore could not challenge the financial condition imposed by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Applicant ordered to pay costs to respondent