Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 5 rule 6

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2015

RE LIMITLESS CONCEPTS LTD

Citation

RE LIMITLESS CONCEPTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW62/2015

The judge held that the Master should apply the established principles when deciding applications for leave to represent a company; an adjournment to a Companies Court judge is not by itself a sufficient reason to grant leave; applications to revoke leave fall to a Master under Order 5 Rule 6(4)-(5). The petition was adjourned for four weeks to permit proper consideration and compliance with directions.
21 Jun 2011

BEELAB SEMICONDUCTOR LTD v. THE OMBUDSMAN

Citation

BEELAB SEMICONDUCTOR LTD v. THE OMBUDSMAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV227/2010

Leave to Ng Shek Wai to make representations as a member of the public under Order 53 rule 5B was refused because he was not a proper person to be heard, the application was an attempt to circumvent the Registrar's refusal under Order 5 rule 6, and the points advanced were not issues properly before the appeal; accordingly the appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
22 Nov 2000

M BERGMANN AG v. TSINLIEN METALS AND MINERALS CO. LTD.

Citation

M BERGMANN AG v. TSINLIEN METALS AND MINERALS CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL198/1997

The court refused the eleventh‑hour adjournment and proceeded to deliver judgment because the defendant failed to attend trial, its solicitors had been permitted to cease acting, no admissible evidence justified further delay, the purported representative was not a director, and the plaintiff would suffer prejudice from postponement.

Hong Kong Case Law

RE LIMITLESS CONCEPTS LTD

BEELAB SEMICONDUCTOR LTD v. THE OMBUDSMAN

M BERGMANN AG v. TSINLIEN METALS AND MINERALS CO. LTD.