THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. LEUNG HOI AND ANOTHER

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. LEUNG HOI AND ANOTHER

Extension of time to appeal was granted because the delay was excusable (the procedural route under O.58 r.2 was not obvious and the Official Receiver's error was understandable), the appeal was not without prospect of success, and there was no reason the appeals could not be heard together; costs of the respondents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER v. LEUNG HOI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER; 1st Respondent: LEUNG HOI; 2nd Respondent: LEUNG YEUNG LAI LING (alias YEUNG LAI LING)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 February 2006
Case Number
HCMP151/2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Application Heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Extension of time to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Director Disqualification, Extension of Time to Appeal, Appeal Jurisdiction, Costs
Source Language
en
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency Practice Director Disqualification Extension of Time to Appeal Appeal Jurisdiction Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER

Applicant

LEUNG HOI

1st Respondent

LEUNG YEUNG LAI LING (alias YEUNG LAI LING)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (leave Application Heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the appeal from the Master's order should properly have been made to the Court of Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal is excusable

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time to appeal was granted because the delay was excusable (the procedural route under O.58 r.2 was not obvious and the Official Receiver's error was understandable), the appeal was not without prospect of success, and there was no reason the appeals could not be heard together; costs of the respondents in this application were ordered to be in the cause of CACV 43/2006.

Court Disposition

Extension of time to appeal granted

Orders

  • Extension of time to appeal granted
  • Costs of the respondents in this application to be in the cause of CACV 43/2006