Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction to extend time

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2019

TSUI YUEN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HO WAI HUNG) v. HO TSE WAI, PHILIP LI & PARTNERS (A FIRM) (formerly known as HO, TSE & WAI & PARTNERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2431
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA587/2015

Extension of time refused because applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the inexcusable delay, failed to show any real or strongly arguable prospect of success on appeal, and the Court has jurisdiction under Order 59 rule 2B(6) to refuse the out‑of‑time application.
7 Nov 2018

DING YONG v. SONG LIHUA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1543/2014

Because the application for extension of time was made after the expiry of the original appeal period, the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension (only the Court of Appeal can); and because there was no pending appeal, there was no proper basis to grant a stay of execution. Therefore the summons was dismissed and the stay application denied.
6 Apr 2018

THE PRACTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. LAM KIN CHOI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 195
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV238/2017

The appeal was automatically incompetent and struck out because the notice of appeal was served outside the 30 day period mandated by section 41(3) PAO and the appellant failed to comply with the Court's unless order to demonstrate jurisdiction or obtain an extension of time; therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the late appeal.
4 Oct 2013

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

CLP POWER HONG KONG LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDRA366/2004

Once the Tribunal makes a review decision the original decision is superseded and a party may not seek leave to appeal the original decision; any appeal must be against the review decision with the statutory time to apply for leave to appeal running from the date of the review decision. However, an appeal against the review decision is not restricted to grounds that were raised in the review; the appellant may raise errors of law in the fresh decision.
27 Sept 2013

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA938/2011

The court held the refused amendments raised new substantive issues (Short-Piling Scandal and ICAC arrests) and therefore an appeal lies as of right so no leave was required; accordingly no order was made on paragraphs 1-2 of the Leave Summons. The court further held it lacked jurisdiction as the court below to grant the requested extension of time to lodge appeal documents under O.59 r.5(1), and dismissed the Extension Summons.
5 Oct 2012

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD

Citation

ZEBRA INDUSTRIES (OROGENESIS NOVA) LTD [ZION] v. WAH TONG PAPER PRODUCTS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1604/2012

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was out of time and the proposed appeal had no prospect of success; the short delay did not justify an extension given the lack of any real prospect, and accordingly no extension of time would have been granted and costs were ordered against the plaintiff with a summary assessment direction of HK$24,640.
9 Aug 2012

CFF v. ZWJ

Citation

CFF v. ZWJ
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12016/2010

The court granted the respondent leave to appeal out of time on condition (notice lodged within 7 days and appeal set down expeditiously) because there was material non-disclosure in the petitioner's affidavit, contact evidence showing the respondent may have been unaware of the divorce, and the respondent demonstrated arguable prospects and explained delay; however the court added a postscript expressing doubt about its jurisdiction to grant leave against a decree nisi and the implications for leave against a decree absolute.
29 Oct 1992

MITA KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. MITAC INC

Citation

MITA KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA v. MITAC INC
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2766/1992

Section 79(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance governs appeals to the Court of Appeal from High Court review of the Registrar and prescribes the appeal period; the Rules of the Supreme Court cannot override that statutory 21‑day limit and the Court has no power to extend that statutory period; therefore the application for leave to file the notice of appeal out of time is dismissed.