顏子亮 v. 西盟斯律師行

顏子亮 v. 西盟斯律師行

The application for extension of time was refused because the notice of appeal was 12 days late, no affidavit evidence was filed to explain the delay, the appellant was familiar with the rules and a prior similar order, and on the merits the appeal was bound to fail because the writ against Simmons & Simmons disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious; accordingly the Master’s strike‑out was upheld.

Citation
顏子亮 v. 西盟斯律師行
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ngan Leung; Defendant/respondent: Simmons & Simmons; Third Party (acknowledgement of Service): Securities and Futures Commission
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 August 2006
Case Number
HCA519/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Interlocutory Strike‑out Order / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Merits of Appeal From Master Hui's Strike‑out Order
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed; strike‑out order upheld; costs awarded to respondent against plaintiff
Legal Topics
Strike‑out, Abuse of Process, Vexatious Litigation, Extension of Time for Appeal, Withdrawal of Notice to Act, Acknowledgement of Service, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Practice and Procedure Professional Conduct Strike‑out Abuse of Process Vexatious Litigation Extension of Time for Appeal Withdrawal of Notice to Act +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngan Leung

Plaintiff/appellant

Simmons & Simmons

Defendant/respondent

Securities and Futures Commission

Third Party (acknowledgement of Service)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Interlocutory Strike‑out Order / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Merits of Appeal From Master Hui's Strike‑out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the underlying writ disclosed a cause of action or was vexatious and frivolous
  3. 3 Whether Simmons & Simmons acted improperly in applying to withdraw notice to act and for SFC to withdraw acknowledgement of service

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the notice of appeal was 12 days late, no affidavit evidence was filed to explain the delay, the appellant was familiar with the rules and a prior similar order, and on the merits the appeal was bound to fail because the writ against Simmons & Simmons disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious; accordingly the Master’s strike‑out was upheld.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; appeal dismissed; strike‑out order upheld; costs awarded to respondent against plaintiff

Orders

  • Application for extension of time refused
  • Appeal dismissed