YICK MING KIT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
- Citation
- YICK MING KIT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 February 2007
- Posture
- Appeal Against Striking Out Order (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Decision on 13 February 2007
- Case number
- HCMP190/2007
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 13 February 2007
- Posture
- Appeal Against Striking Out Order (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Decision on 13 February 2007
- Case number
- HCMP190/2007
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the court agreed with the Deputy High Court Judge that the plaintiff's claims against the SFC disclosed no actionable cause of action and the proposed grounds of appeal were irrelevant and incapable of overturning the strike out decision.
Court disposition
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; costs ordered against the plaintiff.
Orders
- Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
- Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application to be taxed on a party and party basis, such costs to exclude the costs of translation of any document.
02
Material facts
Parties
Yick Ming Kit
Plaintiff Counsel: In personSecurities and Futures Commission
Defendant Counsel: Ms Donna Wacker of Messrs Clifford Chance03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal Against Striking Out Order (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal; Decision on 13 February 2007
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to grant extension of time to appeal
- 02
Whether the plaintiff's original claims disclosed an actionable cause of action against the SFC
- 03
Whether complaints about the SFC engaging a law firm were legally actionable
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff applied for an extension of time to appeal and complained that the SFC was not entitled to engage a law firm in an earlier action.
- Respondent
- Respondent submitted that the plaintiff's claims had no chance of success and that the proposed grounds of appeal were irrelevant and did not afford any basis to upset the striking out order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Deputy High Court Judge Poon; affirmed by Court of Appeal (Yeung JA)
An extension of time to appeal may be refused where the underlying appeal has no real prospect of success.
- 02
Deputy High Court Judge Poon; affirmed by Court of Appeal (Yeung JA)
A claim may be struck out where it discloses no actionable cause of action or no real prospect of success.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the court agreed with the Deputy High Court Judge that the plaintiff's claims against the SFC disclosed no actionable cause of action and the proposed grounds of appeal were irrelevant and incapable of overturning the strike out decision.
Obiter and limits
- The plaintiff's complaint that the SFC was not entitled to engage a law firm in an earlier action is unfounded and not actionable.
- Costs awarded are to be taxed on a party and party basis but excluding costs of translation of any document.
Court disposition
Application for extension of time to appeal refused; costs ordered against the plaintiff.
- Application for extension of time to appeal refused.
- Plaintiff ordered to pay the costs of the application to be taxed on a party and party basis, such costs to exclude the costs of translation of any document.
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 13 February 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 13 February 2007
bjbj HCMP 190/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 190 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 861 OF 2006) _____
BETWEEN
YICK MING KIT Plaintiff and
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION Defendant _____ Before: Hon Yeung JA in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing: 13 February 2007 Date of Decision: 13 February 2007 decision This is an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy Judge Poon ( as he then was ) made on 3 October 2006. I have considered the plaintiff s stance and his explanation for the delay in his application. Irrespective of the causes of the delay, Deputy High Court Judge Poon decided that the plaintiff s claims against the Securities and Futures Commission have no chance of success. I have considered carefully the decision of Deputy Judge Poon and I agree with his reasons. The grounds of appeal put forward by the plaintiff have no relevance to the issues involved in his claims and certainly do not constitute any valid ground for upsetting Deputy Judge Poon s decision. The plaintiff s complaints against the Securities and Futures Commission that it was not entitled to engage a law firm to act for it in an earlier action are unfound, are not actionable and certainly do not constitute a valid cause of action. The decision to strike out his claim is perfectly justified. I therefore reject the plaintiff s application for extension of time to appeal. I also order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the application to be taxed on a party and party basis, such costs to exclude the costs of the translation of any document. (W Yeung) Justice of Appeal Plaintiff: In person. Ms Donna Wacker of Messrs Clifford Chance for the Defendant.
PAGE -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V 1udk 1udk 1Vt^ H; < & 6" ABC final.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Source Erica Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.