CHEUNG CHUN NUI v. BRIGHT PROFIT ASIA GROUP LTD

CHEUNG CHUN NUI v. BRIGHT PROFIT ASIA GROUP LTD

The plaintiff's summons for extension of time and adjournment was dismissed because she had knowledge of the defendant's arguable defence well before the deadline, failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary a milestone hearing date, and the Order 14 application was misconceived and premature; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$116,387 payable forthwith.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 82
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 January 2019
Case Number
DCCJ2837/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (order 14) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment (hearing 13 November 2018)
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons for extension of time dismissed; plaintiff allowed to withdraw Order 14 summons; costs awarded to defendant on indemnity basis, summarily assessed and payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Extension of Time, Adjournment, Expert Inspection, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Property Evidence Costs Summary Judgment Extension of Time Adjournment Expert Inspection +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (order 14) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time and Adjournment (hearing 13 November 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to file an affirmation in reply to the Order 14 summary judgment application
  2. 2 Whether the summary judgment hearing should be adjourned to allow expert inspection
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's Order 14 application was misconceived or premature

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's summons for extension of time and adjournment was dismissed because she had knowledge of the defendant's arguable defence well before the deadline, failed to show exceptional circumstances to vary a milestone hearing date, and the Order 14 application was misconceived and premature; accordingly costs were awarded to the defendant on an indemnity basis and summarily assessed at HK$116,387 payable forthwith.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons for extension of time dismissed; plaintiff allowed to withdraw Order 14 summons; costs awarded to defendant on indemnity basis, summarily assessed and payable forthwith.

Orders

  • Dismissed plaintiff's summons taken out under Order 3, rule 5 and Order 32, rule 1 of the RDC dated 30 October 2018
  • Allowed plaintiff to withdraw Order 14 summons (application would in any event have been dismissed)