Ng Yat Chi v. China Resources (Holdings) Co Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 263/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 July 2016 before Lam VP, Kwan JA, G Lam J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – interlocutory application – disposal on papers – Order 59 Rule 14A – Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance – question of great general or public importance – 'otherwise' limb – application by litigant in person seeking to appeal interlocutory ruling on preparation of bundles and conduct of appeal – whether application is interlocutory – application of Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd (2003) 6 HKCFAR 503 test – whether granting leave would finally determine the underlying issues – reference to Articles 35 and 158 of the Basic Law – no identified question of great general or public importance – no explanation why the 'otherwise' limb should be invoked – application dismissed
Legal issues: Whether the application is interlocutory and may be determined on papers under Order 59 Rule 14A · Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed
Cited by 8 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 2 63/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 263 OF 2005 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 424 OF 2005) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 20 May 2016, the court (Lam VP and G Lam J) handed down a decision in respect of an appeal by the 2nd Plaintiff from the directions given by Yeung VP on 3 May 2016 regarding the preparation of bundles and the conduct of the appeal in CACV 263/2005. 2.On 26 May 2016, the 2nd Plaintiff issued a Motion seeking an order that the 2nd Plaintiff “do have fundamental rights to the Court of Final Appeal” from the judgment of 20 May 2016. The 2nd Plaintiff intituled his motion as “Application for motion re-directed to CFA based upon articles 35 and 158 of the Basic Law to procure authentic transcripts for appeal”, CACV 263/2005. 3.In substance, we treat the motion as an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The criteria for the grant of leave to appeal in civil matters are set out in Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 4.Directions were given for the disposal of the application without an oral hearing. The 2nd Plaintiff queried the court’s jurisdiction to process the application on papers. The answer lies in Order 59 Rule 14A which gives this court the power to determine interlocutory application without a hearing on the basis of written submissions only. 5.Is the present application an interlocutory one? Applying the application test as prescribed by the Court of Final Appeal in Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd (2003) 6 HKCFAR 503, as the present application would not finally determine the relevant underlying issues in CACV 263 of 2005 if the 2nd Plaintiff were to get leave, the application is classified as an interlocutory application. Thus, Order 59 Rule 14A is applicable. 6.In respect of the merits of the application, the 2nd Plaintiff has not set out any question of great general or public importance in the motion. Nor did he explain why leave should exceptionally be granted based on the “otherwise limb” in Section 22. 7.We therefore dismiss the application of 26 May 2016.
2nd plaintiff acting in person No submissions by Clifford Chance, for the 4th defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 263/2005