Lo Ka Chun Otherwise Known As Brian Lo v. Lo To and Another

CACV000044A/1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

Coram: Roberts, C. J., Silke & Barker, JJ.A.

Date of judgment: 21st January, 1986.

----------------

JUDGMENT

----------------

Roberts, C. J. -

1. An appeal will lie, at the discretion of the Court, under Rule 2(b) of the Hong Kong (Appeal to the Privy Council) Order in Council, 1909, if in the opinion of the Court, 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 Her Majesty in Council for decision.

2. Mr. Millett has argued, on behalf of the defendants, that there are questions involved in the appeal of great general or public importance.

3. No doubt these questions are arguable and are of great importance to the parties but we do not find them to be of great general or public importance. And we construe the phrase "or otherwise" in Rule 2(b) as indicating that leave should be given only in special circumstances of some other character which we do not see as being present here.

4. Even if we had been disposed to find that the questions involved were of great general or public importance, we would not have been prepared to exercise the overriding discretion which is vested in us.

5. We think that the interests of justice are better served by this matter coming to trial as soon as possible when, no doubt, the arguments advanced by Mr. Millett will have an influence on the course of the trial. Indeed, many of his arguments were ones that, in our view, would have been better reserved for that occasion, though we understand why he felt constrained to put them before us.

6. We refuse the application and order that the respondent shall have the costs of the application.

Representation:

Mr. J. Millett, Q.C. with Mr. R. Wong (T.S. Tong & Co.) for D. l.

Mr. F. M. Ferris, Q.C. with Mr. A. Neoh and Mr. J. Lam (S. K. Wong & Co.) for the Plaintiff.