CHEE YAU KWONG TRDING AS TIEN LAI GARMENT FACTORY v. KA NGAI GARMENT FACTORY
HTML content
CACV000023/1984
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL | 1984, No. 23 (Civil) |
BETWEEN
| CHEE YAU KWONG trading as TIEN LAI GARMENT FACTORY | Plaintiff | |
and |
| |
| KA NGAI GARMENT FACTORY | Defendant (Appellant) |
---------------
Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.
Date of Judgment: 27th March 1984
______________________
REASONS FOR RULING
______________________
1. The Applicants are solicitors who seek leave to withdraw on the ground that they are without further instructions from their client, the Appellant.
2. There are two irregularities in the proceedings. First, the application is by summons. 0.59 r.14 provides that every application to the Court of Appeal shall be by motion, and, if that were not enough, 0.67 r.6(2) expressly says that an application for a declaration that a solicitor has ceased to act shall, in the Court of Appeal, be by motion. Mrs. Bokhary, who appears today, recognized that there had been an error and says that she drew the attention of the court office to it. She was informed that it was an accepted practice to proceed by summons. It is not, and the rules must be observed.
3. Secondly, the affidavit of service states that service was effected at three addresses, "the residence and the principal places of business of the above-named Appellant respectively". The Appellant is described as a firm and cannot have a residence. Moreover, for the Purposes of 0.81 r.3(1)(b) a partnership can have only one "Principal" place of business, which will normally be that shown as such in the application for registration of the business.
4. Neither of these irregularities affects the merits of the application and I am satisfied that the order sought may properly be made.
27th March 1984
Representation: