27 Mar 1990
CHERYL CHAN v. NGAI PO LUN PAUL
- Citation
- CHERYL CHAN v. NGAI PO LUN PAUL
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV12/1990
The Court concluded the appellant had in fact complied with Order 59 r.5(1) within time (lodged copies and paid the fee) so extension for r.5(1) was unnecessary; the solicitors nonetheless failed to comply with r.5(4) (notice of setting down) but extension to correct that would be pointless because the respondent was aware; the registry entry in the Register of Appeals constitutes 'setting down' in this jurisdiction and solicitors' default is a factor for costs and potential personal responsibility.