Louis Pao v. Chan Shuet Chu
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..
1. This is an application by Mr. Louis Pao, a dancing master, for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a judgment given by this court on 19th January 1988. That judgment related to a claim for damages which Mr. Pao had made against his former landlady arising from her execution on property in certain premises following a judgment against him in her favour for non-payment of the rent. The proceedings giving, rise to our judgment were brought by Mr. Pao in the District Court where he limited
|
CACV000068A/1987 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
BETWEEN
______________ Coram: Hon. Yang, C.J., Kempster & Power JJ.A. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1988 Date of delivery of judgment: 16th March, 1988 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ Kempster, J.A. : 1. This is an application by Mr. Louis Pao, a dancing master, for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from a judgment given by this court on 19th January 1988. That judgment related to a claim for damages which Mr. Pao had made against his former landlady arising from her execution on property in certain premises following a judgment against him in her favour for non-payment of the rent. The proceedings giving, rise to our judgment were brought by Mr. Pao in the District Court where he limited his claim for damages to HK$60,000. He none the less asserted below and before us and, indeed, has always asserted that his dancing notes which she was said to have converted were priceless. 2. By the appeal dismissed Mr. Pao sought an increase in the damages awarded; the figure assessed by the District Judge having been HK$15,000. 3. Subject to appropriate security being provided the Order in Council regulating these matters permits appeals as of right when the value of the property or right concerned amounts to HK$500,000 or more. Having commenced his proceedings in a court of limited jurisdiction that avenue is not open to Mr. Pao. 4. There is an alternative route because we have a discretion to give leave to appeal when a question of great general or public importances arises. Having yet again considered the numerous papers previously submitted by Mr. Pao and further papers prepared for the purposes of this application and also given due weight to his address to us this morning we are unable to find any question arising from our judgment of 19th January 1988 that can properly be described as being of great general or public importance or that for any other reason leave should be given to appeal to Her Majesty in Council. 5. Mr. Pao's application is refused. Representation: Mr. Louis Pao, Applicant/Plaintiff in person Madam Chan Shuet Chu (absent) |