YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON t/a WILSON YEUNG & CO v. CHAN SUI TING

YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON t/a WILSON YEUNG & CO v. CHAN SUI TING

The application for a stay of execution was dismissed because the Defendant continued to fail to comply with the court's unless order (no verifying affidavit filed despite knowledge of the requirement), and that continued non‑compliance justified refusal of relief; given the debt was due and payable the court made the bankruptcy order with costs against the debtor.

Citation
YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON t/a WILSON YEUNG & CO v. CHAN SUI TING
Parties
Plaintiff and Petitioner: Yeung Shu Lam Wilson trading as Wilson Yeung & Co.; Defendant and Debtor: Chan Sui Ting
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Case Number
HCA284/2002
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action (hca 284/2002) and Bankruptcy Petition (hcb 113/2004) / Hearing and Judgment on Stay Application and Bankruptcy Petition (30 July 2004)
Outcome
Application to stay dismissed; bankruptcy order made
Legal Topics
Unless Order, Interlocutory Judgment, Stay of Execution, Bankruptcy Order, Absolute Privilege, Costs and Taxation of Costs, Setting Aside Judgment, Appeal
Source Language
EN
Defamation Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Unless Order Interlocutory Judgment Stay of Execution Bankruptcy Order Absolute Privilege +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeung Shu Lam Wilson trading as Wilson Yeung & Co.

Plaintiff and Petitioner

Chan Sui Ting

Defendant and Debtor

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action (hca 284/2002) and Bankruptcy Petition (hcb 113/2004) / Hearing and Judgment on Stay Application and Bankruptcy Petition (30 July 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with an unless order was intentional or contumelious
  2. 2 Whether stay of execution of interlocutory judgment should be granted
  3. 3 Whether bankruptcy order should be made despite pending applications and appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay of execution was dismissed because the Defendant continued to fail to comply with the court's unless order (no verifying affidavit filed despite knowledge of the requirement), and that continued non‑compliance justified refusal of relief; given the debt was due and payable the court made the bankruptcy order with costs against the debtor.

Court Disposition

Application to stay dismissed; bankruptcy order made

Orders

  • Stay of execution of interlocutory judgment dismissed with costs against the Defendant
  • Bankruptcy order made against the Debtor with costs