WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. EMILY TSE AND OTHERS

DCCJ 2422/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2422 OF 2013

________________________

BETWEEN

WALLBANCK BROTHERS SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LIMITED Plaintiff

and

EMILY TSE 1st Defendant
JUDITH YUEN 2nd Defendant
STEPHEN TISDALL 3rd Defendant

________________________

Before: Deputy District Judge A Chow in Chambers (open to public)

Date of Hearing: 3 April 2014
Date of Decision: 3 April 2014

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. As far as the plaintiff’s reasons for an extension of time, their first reason is that they have to seek counsel’s advice andmay have to amend the pleadings further.

2. Now, the plaintiff has had lots of time. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, they have had lots of time to do that. In any event,this is a summons for extension of time to file affirmation in opposition to the defendant’s application to strike out the statementof claim. It is not the plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to amend the statement of claim. There is no relevancyto the time required to file the affirmation in opposition.

3. As far as the second reason of board meetings is concerned, Mr Chan, you are your own client. You are a director and a shareholderof the plaintiff company and, of course, you are also acting as the solicitor. So, that is not an acceptable reason.

4. As far as the third one is concerned, no prejudice.

(Discussion with Mr Chan)

5. As far as the prejudice is concerned, it has nothing to do with the time the actual hearing scheduled. It has to do with the requirementof filing your evidence in time.

6. Asking for 20 days’ extension, that would bring it up to the 28th day of April.

7. Considering the submissions from both parties, my orders are as follows:

(1) unless the plaintiff serves and files affirmation in opposition to the defendant’s striking out application on or before 5 pmon the 28th day of April 2014 this year, the plaintiff is barred from adducing any evidence or making any submissions at the hearingof the defendant’s summons to strike out the statement of claim;

(2) costs of today be to the defendant, assessed at $600, payable forthwith.

(Discussion re costs)

(Chow)
Deputy District Judge

Mr Phil Chan, of Phillips Solicitors, for the plaintiff

Mr Sharon Li, of Clifford Chance, for the 1st to 3rd defendants