CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

The application for extension of time was refused because the overall justice did not require extension: the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects given the judge's findings that the Company was defunct (loss of substratum) and that there was no binding share transfer agreement, and the asserted grounds of error (misconduct disentitling relief and denial of opportunity to be heard) were unpersuasive on the record.

Citation
CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Cheung Sai Lun; 1st Respondent: Lau Tai Chin Francis; 2nd Respondent: UPI Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2008
Case Number
HCMP1344/2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Winding Up Order Under Companies Ordinance / Court of Appeal (in Chambers) — Application on Intended Appeal From Winding Up Order
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Ground, Loss of Substratum, Extension of Time to File Appeal, Misconduct of Petitioner, Opportunity to Be Heard
Source Language
EN
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Winding Up Just and Equitable Ground Loss of Substratum Extension of Time to File Appeal Misconduct of Petitioner +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Sai Lun

Petitioner

Lau Tai Chin Francis

1st Respondent

UPI Technology Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Winding Up Order Under Companies Ordinance / Court of Appeal (in Chambers) — Application on Intended Appeal From Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to file notice of appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether petitioner misconduct disentitles relief where loss of substratum is alleged

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the overall justice did not require extension: the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects given the judge's findings that the Company was defunct (loss of substratum) and that there was no binding share transfer agreement, and the asserted grounds of error (misconduct disentitling relief and denial of opportunity to be heard) were unpersuasive on the record.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal dated 18 July 2007 refused