CHEN CHERYL DEANNA FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHERYL DEANNA CHEN OR CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA OR CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL v. CHEN PAK YIN STELLA

CHEN CHERYL DEANNA FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHERYL DEANNA CHEN OR CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA OR CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL v. CHEN PAK YIN STELLA

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of over six weeks was substantial and inexcusable, the debtor failed to show a strongly arguable case on the merits (factual findings on service and exercise of discretion were not shown to be erroneous), and therefore extension of time could not be granted.

Citation
CHEN CHERYL DEANNA FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHERYL DEANNA CHEN OR CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA OR CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL v. CHEN PAK YIN STELLA
Parties
Debtor: CHEN CHERYL DEANNA (also known as CHERYL DEANNA CHEN; CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA; CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL); Petitioner: CHEN PAK YIN STELLA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2017
Case Number
HCMP1061/2017
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Out of Time) / Court of Appeal – Application to Extend Time Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Personal Service, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Costs Assessment, Jurisdiction
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Costs Appeal Statutory Demand Personal Service Extension of Time Leave to Appeal +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEN CHERYL DEANNA (also known as CHERYL DEANNA CHEN; CHEN MEI YIN DEANNA; CHEN MEI YIN CHERYL)

Debtor

CHEN PAK YIN STELLA

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition; Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (leave to Appeal Out of Time) / Court of Appeal – Application to Extend Time Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor had reasonable excuse for delay and whether extension of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the statutory demand was validly personally served
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in findings of fact on service and in exercise of discretion as to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of over six weeks was substantial and inexcusable, the debtor failed to show a strongly arguable case on the merits (factual findings on service and exercise of discretion were not shown to be erroneous), and therefore extension of time could not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused; summons dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner

Orders

  • Summons dated 8 May 2017 dismissed
  • Debtor to pay petitioner’s costs assessed at HK$4,928.00 forthwith