LAU CHO KWAN, LEO AND ANOTHER v. LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE AND OTHERS

LAU CHO KWAN, LEO AND ANOTHER v. LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE AND OTHERS

The Court refused the extension of time because the Company failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success and therefore provided no justification to grant additional time or to validate expenditure for counsel to explore unspecified grounds of appeal, especially where the Company was represented by counsel at the hearing and the principles applied were discretionary and well settled.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3352
Parties
1st Petitioner: LAU CHO KWAN, LEO; 2nd Petitioner: LAU BETTY, BARBARA; 1st Respondent: LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE; 2nd Respondent: LAU BIG YING, ROSE; 3rd Respondent: LAU CHO YEE (also known as Lau Cho Yi); 4th Respondent: HUI KENG YEE; 5th Respondent: LAU FUN; 6th Respondent: LIU YI; 7th Respondent: LIU JIE; 8th Respondent: CORNWALL AGENCY COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2021
Case Number
HCCW262/2020
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding‑up) Proceedings No. 262 of 2020 / Interlocutory Ruling (consent Summons for Extension of Time)
Outcome
Consent summons requesting extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Validation Order, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Strike Out, Amendment of Petition, Injunction, Nominal Party
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Appeals Costs Validation Order Leave to Appeal Extension of Time Strike Out +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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAU CHO KWAN, LEO

1st Petitioner

LAU BETTY, BARBARA

2nd Petitioner

LAU SIU FAN, ELAINE

1st Respondent

LAU BIG YING, ROSE

2nd Respondent

LAU CHO YEE (also known as Lau Cho Yi)

3rd Respondent

HUI KENG YEE

4th Respondent

LAU FUN

5th Respondent

LIU YI

6th Respondent

LIU JIE

7th Respondent

CORNWALL AGENCY COMPANY LIMITED

8th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding‑up) Proceedings No. 262 of 2020 / Interlocutory Ruling (consent Summons for Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for applying for leave to appeal should be extended beyond 14 days
  2. 2 Whether the Company has shown reasonable prospects of success to justify extension
  3. 3 Whether validation for proposed company expenditure on legal advice is justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the extension of time because the Company failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success and therefore provided no justification to grant additional time or to validate expenditure for counsel to explore unspecified grounds of appeal, especially where the Company was represented by counsel at the hearing and the principles applied were discretionary and well settled.

Court Disposition

Consent summons requesting extension of time to apply for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Refusal of the Consent Summons seeking extension of time to 23 November 2021 to apply for leave to appeal