Yeung Bee Lee, Billy v. HKSAR

CACV000195B/2002

CACV 195/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 1425/2001)

_______________________

________________

CACV 196/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 6606/1999)

_______________________

_______________________

Coram: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 May 2003

Date of Judgment: 29 May 2003

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a decision of this court on 14 March of this year. The decision of this court related to the question as to whether security for costs for appeal should be provided by Mr Billy Yeung in respect of two appeals which he had brought.

2.The Chief Judge of the High Court had ordered security and it was in respect of that order that Mr Yeung brought the matter to this court and it is from the order of this court, upholding the order of the Chief Judge, that Mr Yeung now wishes to appeal.

3.The important point, therefore, is the basis upon which the security for costs has been ordered. The basis upon which this court decided the matter is set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this court's judgment. That was entirely in accordance with the established principles. Indeed our attention has been drawn to the case of Paul Ki Ping Kee and Another v Secretary for Justice and Another FAMV No. 15 of 1999 which confirms the matter. I see no basis upon which this court could hold that there is a matter of great general or public importance, within the terms of Section 22(1) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap.484, that would justify giving leave to appeal.

4.I would mention that Mr Yeung is anxious to bring his appeals and is anxious to proceed with his two cases because he feels a grave sense of injustice in relation to the proceedings which had taken place before, the effect of which he wishes to challenge. Before this court he took a new point in relation to CACV 282 of 1998. His indication is that he should never have been treated as a party to that appeal, but, unlike the other appellants in that case who were represented, Mr Yeung represented himself on that occasion and it is quite clear that he made submissions. It is quite clear that he had launched an appeal.

5.The court's conclusion in respect of that case undoubtedly covered Mr Yeung's case. The court's decision was that Mr Yeung whose appeal was No.282 of 1998, and indeed all the other appellants whose appeals were heard at the same time, never had any valid claim to damages or any other form of monetary compensation at all. An order was made dismissing appeal No.282 of 1998 along with all the other appeals.

6.As has already been established, Mr Yeung has indeed received some compensation. No doubt he believes that that is inadequate compensation for the loss of what he previously enjoyed. In the present circumstances, I cannot see that this court could grant leave to appeal. Whilst this court would always express sympathy with those who have been deprived of what they have enjoyed previously, I do not see that Mr Yeung has cause for complaint which would justify granting leave to appeal in relation to the present decision.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

7.I agree.

Representation:

The Plaintiff/Applicant,acting in person (present)

Mr Kwok Sui Hay, instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons, for the Defendants/ Respondents