Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Pico International (Hk) Ltd v Palace Dreams Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date05 June 2008
Year2008
Judgement NumberDCCJ507/2007
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCJ000507B/2007 PICO INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. PALACE DREAMS LTD

DCCJ507/2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 507 OF 2007

BETWEEN

PICO INTERNATIONAL (HK) LIMITED Plaintiff
and
PALACE DREAMS LIMITED Defendant

Before: H H Judge Mimmie Chan in Chambers (Open to the public)

Date of Hearing: 5 June 2008

Date of Decision: 5 June 2008

D E C I S I O N

1. The plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against my decision of 2 May 2008, whereby I dismissed an appeal against the Order of Master Lee made on 2 applications before him on 4 March 2008.

2. For the record, the Notice of Appeal heard before me on 2 May 2008 sought, in place of the order of Master Lee, that I should, first, make an order that the order for examination made by Master Pang on 10 October 2007 be amended to refer to O.48 instead of O. 49B; and further, that I should dismiss the application made by the directors of the Defendant that the order for examination be set aside.

3. On 2 May 2008, I refused the amendment and dismissed the appeal.

4. The plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal on the ground that (1) I had erred in setting aside the order for the examination of the 2 directors of the defendant under Order 49B ; (2) I had erred in not varying the said order for examination under Order 32 rule 6; and (3) I had erred in holding that Order 20 rule 11 does not apply to allow an amendment of the order for examination.

5. On ground (1), counsel for the plaintiff who appeared at the hearing on 2 May 2008 had accepted at the outset that if the amendment of the order for examination is not allowed under O.20 r.11, the order for examination of 10 October 2007 ought to be set aside, as examination of directors of the Defendant company obviously cannot take place under Order 49B. That was a reasonable and fair concession made by experienced counsel acting for the plaintiff. Having ably and persuasively argued the application for amendment, which I did not allow, the application for setting aside was not dealt with by the plaintiff at all.

6. The question therefore is not simply whether the plaintiff is bound by the concessions made by counsel if the concession is wrong in law, as counsel now appearing for the plaintiff submits. The application before me today is not a rehearing of the 2 applications placed before Master Lee. Whether or not the examination order should be set aside was not argued on 2 May 2008. Since it was not argued at all, the plaintiff in seeking leave to appeal has to overcome the hurdle of being able to persuade the court of appeal...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT