LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondents failed to show the trial judge had taken irrelevant matters into account or had exercised his discretion unjudicially or on false principles; the respondents lacked realistic prospects of success given (i) they had previously sought oral evidence at the hearing, (ii) the judge considered and rejected the submissions about offers and abuse of process, and (iii) separate costs orders were justified; accordingly leave denied and costs awarded to petitioner.

Citation
LAI YUET CHUN v. SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Petitioner: LAI YUET CHUN; 1st Respondent: SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; 2nd Respondent: POON HIN PONG; 3rd Respondent: LAU CHEUK LAM; 4th Respondent: LI OI LAN, TWINKLE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2003
Case Number
HCCW186/2001
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) (s.168 a and S.177 Companies Ordinance) / Summons for Leave to Appeal (costs) in Chambers; Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Leave to Appeal, Judicial Discretion, Abuse of Process, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Company Law Civil Procedure Costs Winding Up Leave to Appeal Judicial Discretion Abuse of Process Costs Assessment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LAI YUET CHUN

Petitioner

SUPER DELUXE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

1st Respondent

POON HIN PONG

2nd Respondent

LAU CHEUK LAM

3rd Respondent

LI OI LAN, TWINKLE

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) (s.168 a and S.177 Companies Ordinance) / Summons for Leave to Appeal (costs) in Chambers; Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of a costs decision
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge exercised his discretion improperly or took irrelevant extraneous matters into account
  3. 3 Whether the hearing should have been a truncated affidavit-based hearing rather than oral evidence and cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondents failed to show the trial judge had taken irrelevant matters into account or had exercised his discretion unjudicially or on false principles; the respondents lacked realistic prospects of success given (i) they had previously sought oral evidence at the hearing, (ii) the judge considered and rejected the submissions about offers and abuse of process, and (iii) separate costs orders were justified; accordingly leave denied and costs awarded to petitioner.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs awarded to petitioner

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the application to the petitioner to be paid forthwith by the 2nd to 4th respondents