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

Sanyo Securities (Asia) Ltd v Lin Kuang Lung Raymond

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date01 February 1996
Judgement NumberCACV210/1995
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV000210A/1995 SANYO SECURITIES (ASIA) LTD v. LIN KUANG LUNG RAYMOND

CACV000210A/1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1995, No. 210 & 257
(Civil)

BETWEEN
SANYO SECURITIES (ASIA) LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
LIN KUANG LUNG, RAYMOND Defendant

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

Coram: Bokhary JA in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 1 February 1996

Date of Judgment: 1 February 1996

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

J U D G M E NT

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

Bokhary JA:

1. The summons before me seeks a direction that "The dates of hearing of these appeals be fixed in consultation with the parties' Counsels' diaries".

2. My power for present purposes is that contained in paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction pertaining to the Listing of Appeals found on p. 5.3 of the 1990 Revision of the Practice Directions of the Supreme Court.

3. That power is to make a direction that the Clerk of the Court do fix a date in accordance with item (b) of paragraph 2 of that Practice Direction even though the appeal concerned is a "short appeal" within the meaning of that paragraph.

4. Paragraph 2 reads:

"The Clerk of Court will fix a date for hearing in the following manner:-

(a) An appeal estimated to last for 2 days or less (a short appeal) will be fixed for hearing on the next available date;

(b) An appeal estimated to last for more than 2 days will, so far as practicable, be fixed for hearing in accordance with the preference of the parties."

5. Obviously, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a direction under paragraph 3 will be made. And that is for the very simple reason that the fixing of a date for a short appeal in the manner prescribed in item (b) of paragraph 2 rather than item (a) thereof is the exception rather than the rule.

6. Here we are dealing with consolidated appeals which seem to me to be very considerably heavier and more complex than the general run of short appeals.

7. I do not say that that alone would always justify a paragraph 3 direction. But in all the circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that my discretion under paragraph 3 does arise.

8. Initially, Mr Graham for Lin Kuang Lung resisted a paragraph 3 direction. He did so even when it became known that allowing matters to take their course under item (a) of paragraph 2 would result in the appeal being fixed for April 16 & 17 this year, which dates are not convenient to either Mr Graham or his proposed leader.

9. Mr Graham's client was prepared to suffer the...

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