Messrs BRUNO ARBOIT AND IAN ROBINSON, The Joint and Several Liquidators of CHUNG YING REMINBI EXCHANGE CO LTD v. HU YAN AND ANOTHER
The Court held that leave under section 14AA was required for the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the delay was inexcusable and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; a master of the Court of First Instance could not validly alter the identity of parties in an ongoing Court of Appeal matter, therefore the 26 July 2018 amendment had no effect for this appeal; accordingly leave out of time was refused, the summons dismissed and the cross-appeal struck out.
- Citation
- [2018] HKCA 507
- Parties
- Plaintiffs: Bruno Arboit and Ian Robinson, The Joint and Several Liquidators of Chung Ying Reminbi Exchange Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Hu Yan (胡彥); 2nd Defendant: Wu Leung (胡亮)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 15 August 2018
- Case Number
- CACV262/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Leave to Cross Appeal and Related Procedural Applications Following Summary Judgment Proceedings
- Outcome
- Summons for leave to appeal out of time dismissed; leave to cross-appeal refused; cross-appeal struck out; the Liquidators remain as Plaintiffs for the purposes of the appeal; no order as to costs for the cross-appeal and the summons of 3 August 2018.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Cross Appeal, Amendment of Parties, Power of Master/registrar, Misappropriation
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bruno Arboit and Ian Robinson, The Joint and Several Liquidators of Chung Ying Reminbi Exchange Company Limited
Plaintiffs
Hu Yan (胡彥)
1st Defendant
Wu Leung (胡亮)
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination on Leave to Cross Appeal and Related Procedural Applications Following Summary Judgment Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave under section 14AA was required for the Plaintiffs to bring a cross-appeal and whether leave out of time should be granted
- 2 Whether a master of the Court of First Instance could amend the title of an appeal or change the identity of parties in the Court of Appeal proceedings
- 3 Whether the Plaintiffs demonstrated a real prospect of success to justify late leave to cross-appeal against the grant of unconditional leave to defend at summary judgment
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that leave under section 14AA was required for the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal, the delay was inexcusable and the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; a master of the Court of First Instance could not validly alter the identity of parties in an ongoing Court of Appeal matter, therefore the 26 July 2018 amendment had no effect for this appeal; accordingly leave out of time was refused, the summons dismissed and the cross-appeal struck out.
Court Disposition
Summons for leave to appeal out of time dismissed; leave to cross-appeal refused; cross-appeal struck out; the Liquidators remain as Plaintiffs for the purposes of the appeal; no order as to costs for the cross-appeal and the summons of 3 August 2018.
Orders
- Summons dated 3 August 2018 seeking leave to appeal out of time dismissed
- Leave to cross-appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment