Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 59 rule 5

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2021

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/2017

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to strike out the notice of appeal because the defendants' prolonged inactivity after obtaining leave to appeal constituted inordinate and inexcusable delay and an abuse of process (warehousing), their derivative action explanation did not justify delay beyond mid‑2018, and the delay caused prejudice to the plaintiff and the administration of justice; accordingly the appeal was struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Aug 2015

PARK LOMEN INN LTD v. APPEAL BOARD

Citation

PARK LOMEN INN LTD v. APPEAL BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP486/2015

Because the applicant served the notice of appeal within the prescribed period and the applicant attempted to lodge the sealed order within seven days but the Registry refused to accept lodgment through no fault of the applicant, the Court granted an extension of time to comply with Order 59 Rule 5(1). On the merits the Court agreed with the judge below that the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable under the Chan Po Fun test and dismissed the appeal; costs were ordered against the applicant at 90% of the Superintendent's costs.
1 Feb 1980

WONG SHU-TAO v. MADAM CHOI SHUEN-LAN

Citation

WONG SHU-TAO v. MADAM CHOI SHUEN-LAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV71/1979

Appellant failed to comply with Order 59 rule 5 by undue delay in providing the required judgment/office copy; the appeal lacked arguable merit; accordingly the court refused an extension of time and discharged the Notice of Appeal.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHEUNG TING KAU, VINCENT v. KOO SIU YING AND ANOTHER

PARK LOMEN INN LTD v. APPEAL BOARD

WONG SHU-TAO v. MADAM CHOI SHUEN-LAN