Read the full judgment text of CACV 174/2015 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 November 2016.
1. Though there were four parties in this action at the trial, there were only two parties appearing before us in the appeal. For the reasons given on 3 May 2016 by Lam VP and Chu JA, the 2 nd Plaintiff had never been an effective party to the appeal (and its name as a party to the appeal had been struck out). Due to the non-compliance with the court’s directions on 13 May 2016, the 2 nd Defendant was barred from lodging submissions or acting by a representative other than a solicitor. The 2 nd
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case