Lee Chick Choi v. Best Spirits Co Ltd
Read the full judgment text of CACV 138/2015 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 June 2017 before Yuen JA, Kwan JA, Poon JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether question is of great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to Court of Final Appeal for decision – section 22(1)(b) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 – underlying appeal dismissed with costs on indemnity basis to be summarily assessed – costs summarily assessed at HK$100,000.00 – application for leave to appeal against costs order – grounds failed to identify any error in summary assessment and did not satisfy statutory threshold – wholly unmeritorious application – leave to appeal refused and notice of motion dismissed – no order as to costs since respondent filed no written submissions in opposition.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted against the Costs Order
Outcome: Leave to appeal refused and the appellant's notice of motion dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
|
CACV 138/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 138 OF 2015 (ON APPEAL FROM HCB NO 1128 OF 2015) _______________
_______________
_______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) : 1.By a judgment handed down on 24 February 2017, we, having dismissed the appellant’s appeal and disposed of his summons dated 1 February 2017, ordered him to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis to be summarily assessed on paper. By an order dated 18 April 2017 (“Costs Order”), we summarily assessed the respondent’s costs at HK$100,000.00, after considering the respondent’s statement of costs and the appellant’s statement of objection. 2.By a notice of motion dated 4 May 2017, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against the Costs Order to the Court of Final Appeal. The respondent’s solicitors wrote to the court on 16 May 2017, stating that since the application was wholly unmeritorious and was an abuse of process, they would not file any skeleton submission in opposition. Having considered the notice of motion and the appellant’s affirmation and documents filed in support, we come to the view that the application can be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing. We now hand down our judgment. 3.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, may be granted if 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 of Final Appeal for decision. 4.The grounds of appeal attached to the notice of appeal have failed completely (a) to identify the error we had supposedly made in our summary assessment of the respondent’s costs as per the Costs Order; and (b) to state any ground to satisfy either threshold in section 22(1)(b) for the grant of leave of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 5.In the circumstances, we refuse to give the appellant leave to appeal and dismiss his notice of motion. Since the respondent has not filed any written submissions in opposition, we will make no order as to costs.
The Appellant, unrepresented, acted in person Messrs Hobson & Ma, for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 138/2015