Joseph Hui Tak Fai v. Hong Kong Federation of Stock Exchanges
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1484/1985 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. In late 1984 the Applicant responded to a notice by the Federation of Stock Exchanges of 20th October 1984 requiring notification of claims arising out of the failure of a firm of stock brokers within three months of the date of the notice. The three month period having expired, the Applicant through solicitors made repeated requests of the Federation for a determination one way or the other in relation to its claim, the latest of which was by letter dated 30th May 1985. In that letter solici
|
HCMP001484/1985
------------ BETWEEN
------------ Coram: Mantell, J, in Chambers. Date of hearing: 19th June, 1985. Date of decision: 19th June, 1985. _________ DECISION _________ 1. In late 1984 the Applicant responded to a notice by the Federation of Stock Exchanges of 20th October 1984 requiring notification of claims arising out of the failure of a firm of stock brokers within three months of the date of the notice. The three month period having expired, the Applicant through solicitors made repeated requests of the Federation for a determination one way or the other in relation to its claim, the latest of which was by letter dated 30th May 1985. In that letter solicitors for the Applicant indicated that if there was no satisfactory response they intended to bring proceedings in the form which they now have, to ask the High Court to require the Federation of Stock Exchanges to make their determination in accordance with the statutory duty laid upon them. There has been no response to that letter. 2. I am in the circumstances disposed to grant leave to apply for judicial review. I take the view, that it is at least arguable and reasonably arguable that the Applicant is entitled to relief in the manner in which it is sought. 3. I have only given reasons for this decision because at a later date some question may turn on the point as to whether or not this application is in time, having regard to the fact that an application for leave must be made promptly or at the latest within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers there to be good reason for extending the time within which the application may be made. The very earliest date at which an application could have been made would have been the 21st January 1985, which in my view would have been premature, being the first day after the period during which claims might be notified had elasped. That in my view was not when the ground for the application first arose. It was after solicitors for the Applicant put the Federation on notice that it would bring proceedings if no satisfactory response was received to their letter of 30th May 1985 and therefore this application is timely. 4. If I am wrong about that and the period should run from 20th January, I would have no hesitation, in the exercise of my discretion, in extending time.
Representation: Brandt of Johnson, Stokes & Master for Applicant. |