This case demonstrates how the judiciary is prepared to adopt a robust approach when dealing with applications for extension of time.

On 6 October 2010, Master de Souza made an order allowing the Plaintiff to join the 5th and 6th Defendants as parties to the proceedings and this was an application by the 5th and 6th Defendants for an extension of time for filing and serving their Defence and Counterclaim within 28 days after the determination of their appeal against Master de Souza’s order. The appeal was to be heard on 11 January 2011.

Having considered the parties’ affidavit evidence and written submissions, Registrar Lung dismissed the 5th and 6th Defendants’ application with costs to the Plaintiff. While the matter was argued before Master de Souza, the Defendants merely submitted that the matter should be adjourned for argument and did not put forward any grounds to object against leave for joining them. In their application for extension of time before Registrar Lung, the Defendants had also elected not to disclose their reasons for opposition against the granting of leave to join them as parties to the proceedings. Given that there were no materials before the Court that could show that the Defendants’ appeal would stand a good chance of success, Registrar Lung held that there was no reason for the matter to be stayed as proposed by the 5th and 6th Defendants.

The Plaintiff was awarded with costs of the application which were summarily assessed. That said, on the basis that this was a simple application, Registrar Lung disallowed the Plaintiff’s fees for counsel’s attendance and for solicitor attending counsel. 

Hong Kong Dispute Resolution Bulletin – incorporating CJR Alerter: For full analysis of this case subscribe to the Sweet & Maxwell HKDRB, produced in association with Clifford Chance.

This article is available in [2010] 17 HKDRB.

Advertisement