Union V-tex Shirt Factory Ltd v Union V-tex Realty Ltd And Others

Court:Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:CACV48/1983
CACV000048A/1983 UNION V-TEX SHIRT FACTORY LTD v. UNION V-TEX REALTY LTD AND OTHERS

CACV000048A/1983

Practice and Procedure - Court of Appeal - an order is perfected when it has been signed, sealed and entered - if it has been incorrectly drawn up, it can be amended, but it is none the less a perfected order - an order allowing the appeal having been perfected, the court had no jurisdiction to re-open the appeal.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1983, No. 48

(Civil)

BETWEEN

(Action No. 219 of 1976)

UNION V-TEX SHIRT FACTORY LIMITED

Plaintiff

and

UNION V-TEX REALTY LIMITED

Defendant

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
WONG PING SHAN 1st Third Party
WONG CHAN KAM CHI 2nd Third Party
ALEX WAI TSE HANG 3rd Third Party
WANG CHO KI 4th Third Party
CHU KA KIM 5th Third Party
LEE KWOK YAT 6th Third Party
LAU, CHAN & KO (a firm) 7th Third Party

BETWEEN

(Action No. 602 of 1976)

UNION (V-TEX) SHIRT FACTORY LIMITED Plaintiff

and

THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
WONG PING SHAN 1st Defendant
WONG CHAN KAM CHI 2nd Defendant
ALEX WAI TSE HANG 3rd Defendant
WANG CHO KI 4th Defendant
CHU KA KIM 5th Defendant
LEE KWOK YAT 6th Defendant

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

Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P., Yang and Fuad, JJ.A.

____________

JUDGMENT

____________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. We are at present concerned only with the application to re-open the appeal and, as to that application, we have heard full argument so far on only one point.

2. The matter arises like this. The judge in chambers declined to strike out these actions for want of prosecution. On 30th June an appeal against his decision was allowed and we said that we would give our reasons later. Counsel raised the matter of costs but it was agreed that that matter should stand over until the Reasons had been delivered. On 29th July our Reasons were handed down. We made no order nisi as to costs because we understood that counsel might wish to address us. There followed discussions and correspondence between counsel and solicitors and it was agreed between them that the court be asked to make an order that costs follow the event. On 27th September the solicitors for the 5th Defendant, on behalf of all the defendants concerned, presented for signing, sealing and entry an order that the appeal be allowed and that the Respondent pay the costs. The draft order had been approved by the court clerk but no order as to costs had in fact been made. The order was signed, sealed and entered in the form in which it had been approved. The question is whether the order disposing of the appeal has been perfected. If it has, it is common ground that the court has no jurisdiction to re-open the appeal.

3. Mr. Littman argues that, as the court had not made any order as to costs, the purported perfection of the order allowing the appeal was invalid. It was inherent in his argument that until the matter of costs had been dealt with...

To continue reading

Request your trial