Cheng Lai Kwan v. Nan Fung Textiles Ltd
|
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL
----------------- Coram: Hon Nazareth Atg CJHC, Mortimer V-P and Leong JA in Court Date of Hearing: 10 July 1998 Date of Judgment: 10 July 1998 ----------------- JUDGMENT ----------------- Nazareth Atg CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court): 1. This is an application by Madam Cheng Lai-kwan for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the decision of this Court given on 28 April 1998. By that decision, this Court dismissed her appeal against the award of damages given by Yam J. 2. The applicant unfortunately sustained workplace injuries in January 1989. Liability was not disputed and ultimately the matter came to Yam J. He made an award of damages with which she remains dissatisfied. She appealed to this Court purely on the quantum of general damages. She could accordingly now obtain leave only under two heads. First, conditional leave under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, if the matter in dispute were of the value of $1m or more. But the claim is one in general damages and upon the principle in Zuliana and Veira [1994]1 WLR at 1149, she cannot be entitled under that provision. 3. The other provision is paragraph (b) of s.22(1) under which, in the discretion of this Court, she may obtain leave if in the opinion of this 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 the Court of Final Appeal for decision. The applicant has not been able to identify any such question nor does it appear to us that there is any such question. All she is inclined to do is rehearse the complaints we listened to at great length at the hearing of the appeal. 4. Leave is refused.
Representation: Miss Christina Lee (M/s Cheng, Yeung & Co) for the Respondent Applicant in person Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal by the Plaintiff/Applicant. Application is dismissed. Please refer to the appeal judgment of FAMV13/1998. |
Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 13/1998