BabelCite

Law Wai Hay v. Law Po Chong Priscilla, The Administrator of the Estate of Cheung Wai Fun

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 1 June 2016.

1. On 16 October 2015 this court dismissed the defendant’s appeal from an order made by DHCJ B Chu (now B Chu J) on 11 April 2014 and also dismissed the defendant’s application to adduce fresh evidence made by way of summons filed on 25 September 2015. We also ordered the defendant to personally pay the costs of the plaintiff summarily assessed at $80,000. Reasons for our decision were handed down on 29 October 2015.

Case No.
Court
Date01 Jun 2016
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CAC V 91/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 3477 OF 2013)

_______________________

BETWEEN

LAW WAI HAY Plaintiff
AND
LAW PO CHONG PRISCILLA,
the administrator of the estate of CHEUNG WAI FUN 		Defendant

_______________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Chu JJA
Date of Plaintiff’s Written Submission: 1 March 2016
Date of Defendant’s Written Submission: 25 January 2016
Date of Judgment: 1 June 2016

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 October 2015 this court dismissed the defendant’s appeal from an order made by DHCJ B Chu (now B Chu J) on 11 April 2014 and also dismissed the defendant’s application to adduce fresh evidence made by way of summons filed on 25 September 2015. We also ordered the defendant to personally pay the costs of the plaintiff summarily assessed at $80,000. Reasons for our decision were handed down on 29 October 2015.

2.On 12 November 2015 the defendant filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.On 16 November 2015 the Registrar of Civil Appeals gave directions for the matter to be disposed of on paper.  Certain deadlines were subsequently extended.

4.On 25 January 2016 the defendant submitted her skeleton submissions.  She made serious allegations against the plaintiff and his legal advisers (including one based on her misreading of the date when Letters of Administration were granted) and formulated questions which were essentially fact-sensitive.

5.Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484) s.22(1)(b) provides:

“An appeal shall lie to the Court at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision.”

6.It is clear that the present application does not satisfy the requirements of s.22(1)(b), as the appeal does not involve any question of great general or public importance, nor is the “otherwise” ground engaged. 

7.The application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff is to provide to the court and the defendant a statement of costs for summary assessment within 14 days of the date of this judgment.  The defendant shall provide her comments, if any, on the statement of costs within 14 days thereafter.  The court will then provide a summary assessment after considering the statement of costs and any comments. 

(M H LAM) (Maria YUEN) (Carlye CHU)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Ms Rachael Siu, instructed by Lim & Lok, for the Plaintiff

Defendant, acting in person