SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN

SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN

Service by registered post was properly effected and Company Registry and postal evidence established respondent was resident at the service address at the relevant time; respondent produced no credible evidence he was absent or did not receive the documents, his asserted defence lacked credibility and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, and there was substantial unexplained delay — therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.

Citation
SONIA YAU AND ANOTHER v. LAU MING YIN
Parties
Applicant (joint and Several Liquidator): Sonia Yau; Applicant (joint and Several Liquidator): Andrew Hung; Respondent (former Director): Lau Ming Yin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 March 2009
Case Number
HCMP258/2009
Procedural Posture
Companies Ordinance Proceedings (unfair Preference / Recovery) and Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Extend Time to Appeal Against Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Preference, Service of Process, Extension of Time to Appeal, Voidable Transaction, Liquidators' Recovery
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Unfair Preference Service of Process Extension of Time to Appeal Voidable Transaction +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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonia Yau

Applicant (joint and Several Liquidator)

Andrew Hung

Applicant (joint and Several Liquidator)

Lau Ming Yin

Respondent (former Director)

Procedural Posture

Companies Ordinance Proceedings (unfair Preference / Recovery) and Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Interlocutory Application to Extend Time to Appeal Against Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service by registered post was properly effected
  2. 2 Whether respondent was present in Hong Kong on or about date of deemed service
  3. 3 Whether respondent has a real prospect of success on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Service by registered post was properly effected and Company Registry and postal evidence established respondent was resident at the service address at the relevant time; respondent produced no credible evidence he was absent or did not receive the documents, his asserted defence lacked credibility and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, and there was substantial unexplained delay — therefore extension of time to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to extend time to appeal refused
  • Liquidators to have the costs of this application to be taxed if not agreed