GEORGE Y C MOK & CO (A FIRM) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD AND OTHERS

GEORGE Y C MOK & CO (A FIRM) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD AND OTHERS

The Court refused the defendants' application to reconsider the grant of leave: there was no merit in allegations of material non-disclosure and the short delay was not inexcusable; solicitor‑litigants may instruct counsel and the court should not debar counsel absent clear prejudice to the interests of justice; accordingly leave should not be rescinded and the defendants' application is dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

Citation
GEORGE Y C MOK & CO (A FIRM) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: GEORGE Y C MOK & CO. (A FIRM); Defendant/respondent: TRADE ADVISERS COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: LIU TAI CHUEN; Defendant/respondent: LIU WAI KEUNG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2003
Case Number
HCMP2538/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Application to Reconsider Grant of Leave (inter Partes) and Related Interlocutory Costs Issues
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Solicitor as Litigant Instructing Counsel, Leave to Appeal, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Delay in Making Applications, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Professional Conduct of Lawyers Costs Appeals Summary Judgment Solicitor as Litigant Instructing Counsel Leave to Appeal Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GEORGE Y C MOK & CO. (A FIRM)

Plaintiff/appellant

TRADE ADVISERS COMPANY LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

LIU TAI CHUEN

Defendant/respondent

LIU WAI KEUNG

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Application to Reconsider Grant of Leave (inter Partes) and Related Interlocutory Costs Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a firm of solicitors acting as litigant may directly instruct counsel and thereby have locus to be represented
  2. 2 Whether the grant of leave by Ma JA should be reconsidered on grounds of material nondisclosure
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the ex parte application was excessive and justifies rescission of leave

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the defendants' application to reconsider the grant of leave: there was no merit in allegations of material non-disclosure and the short delay was not inexcusable; solicitor‑litigants may instruct counsel and the court should not debar counsel absent clear prejudice to the interests of justice; accordingly leave should not be rescinded and the defendants' application is dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application by defendants to reconsider Ma JA's grant of leave dismissed
  • Leave previously granted by Ma JA not rescinded