17 Sept 2014
百州年投資管理集團有限公司 v. 銀泰百貨(集團)有限公司 AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- 百州年投資管理集團有限公司 v. 銀泰百貨(集團)有限公司 AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA507/2013
The appeal succeeds because the plaintiff had ample time to file opposing evidence, the timetable and hearing date were agreed by consent, and the medical evidence presented did not sufficiently explain inability to comply; accordingly the Master’s extension and adjournment order was set aside and an unless order was imposed (14 days) with debarment if not complied with, the striking out application was ordered to be heard by a Judge in Chambers at the earliest date, and costs were awarded to the 1st defendant on an indemnity basis.