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

Re Lawe Willian Enterprises Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date27 July 1989
Year1989
Judgement NumberHCMP1638/1989
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMP001638A/1989 RE LAWE WILLIAN ENTERPRISES LTD

HCMP001638A/1989

1989, No. 1638

-----------------------

H E A D N O T E

-----------------------

The standard to be adopted when an application is made to the Court for an order that a case be heard during the vacation under Order 64, rule 3(2) of the Rules of Supreme Court is a high one. In re Showerings, Vine Products & Whiteways Ltd.'s Application [1968]1 W.L.R. 1381 and Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Dawn Property Co. Ltd. [1973]1 W.L.R. 1450 followed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1638 OF 1989

_________________

IN THE MATTER of Order 53 Rule 3 of the Rules of Supreme Court

and
IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review by Lawe William Enterprises Limited

________________

Coram: Hon, Jones, J. in Chambers

Date of hearing: 27th July 1989

Date of delivery of decision: 27th July 1989

---------------------

D E C I S I O N

---------------------

1. This is an application by the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the respondent) to vacate dates fixed for the hearing of a judicial review in the long vacation.

2. On the 10th July, Barnes, J. granted to Lawe William Enterprises Limited (the applicant), leave to apply for judicial review for an order of certiorari in respect of a decision of the respondent made on the 10th April which cancelled the listing and permission to deal in securities of the applicant on the Stock Exchange. In fact there has been no trading by the applicant since the 4th August 1977 when it was suspended at its own request.

3. By an application made by a letter dated the 12th July which, I am told was coupled with an oral application, the solicitors for the applicant, without giving any notice to the respondent, obtained leave from Master Jennings on that date for the judicial review to be heard during the long vacation. Two grounds were put forward in the application; first, the matter is of great importance and urgent, and second, neither leading counsel nor junior counsel instructed will be available after the long vacation. Having obtained leave from the Master dates were fixed on the following day, the 13th July, again without consultation with the respondent for the judicial review to be heard from the 14th to the 16th of August.

4. As the hearing of a judicial review is not vacation business, it was necessary for the applicant to satisfy the Master of the requirements of Order 64, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court which reads :-

"3(2) Any party to a cause or matter may at any time apply to the court for an order that such cause or matter be heard in vacation and, if the court is satisfied that the cause or matter requires to be immediately or promptly heard, it may make an order accordingly and fix a date...

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