SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAH.K. TRANSPORT CO.P YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA

SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAH.K. TRANSPORT CO.P YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show that the judge misapplied the law, misapprehended material facts, considered irrelevant matters or omitted relevant matters, or that the judge's conclusion was plainly wrong; the particulars had not been properly served and the exercise of discretion was therefore justified.

Citation
SITEC ELECTRONICS LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN KWOK KEUNG t/a CHAH.K. TRANSPORT CO.P YAU (KEUNG KEE) CHINA
Parties
Plaintiff: Sitec Electronics Limited; Plaintiff: Amic Technology (Taiwan) Inc.; Plaintiff: Dongguan Sitec Semi-Conductor Company Limited; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 June 2006
Case Number
DCCJ1456/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application / Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Particulars, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Leave to Appeal, Service of Particulars, Standards of Appellate Interference
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Appeal Contract Particulars Exercise of Judicial Discretion Leave to Appeal Service of Particulars Standards of Appellate Interference

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sitec Electronics Limited

Plaintiff

Amic Technology (Taiwan) Inc.

Plaintiff

Dongguan Sitec Semi-Conductor Company Limited

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Application / Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge wrongly exercised discretion in ordering further and better particulars
  2. 2 Whether the defendant demonstrated grounds sufficient to justify leave to appeal
  3. 3 Whether particulars had been properly served and whether failure justified the order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show that the judge misapplied the law, misapprehended material facts, considered irrelevant matters or omitted relevant matters, or that the judge's conclusion was plainly wrong; the particulars had not been properly served and the exercise of discretion was therefore justified.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs