Yuen Oi Yee Lisa v. Ngai Ngok Leong

CACV 245/2022, [2023] HKCA 785

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 1828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 245 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 1936 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 2 May 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of Au-Yeung J dated 16 June 2022 whereby the originating summons was struck out and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with a restricted proceedings order against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on 9 May 2023 to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal[1].

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals has directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The plaintiff lodged her written submissions on 10 May 2023 while the defendant has not responded to this application. Having considered the plaintiff’s written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.By a letter to the court dated 31 May 2023, the plaintiff sought leave to file and serve a copy of her letter to the defendant dated 13 May 2023 and its enclosures. We see no valid reason why leave should be granted to file and serve such documents in this application. We refuse her request.

4.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

5.In the Notice of Motion and written submissions, the plaintiff contended that the questions she raised are of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Ten questions were set out in the Notice of Motion. As they are of some length, they will not be repeated here.

6.None of the questions raised in the Notice of Motion are of any general or public importance, nor are they reasonably arguable.

7.Questions (1) and (3) have no relevance to the issues determined in these proceedings.

8.Questions (2) and (7) concern the alleged forgery of the defendant’s signature which has already been decided in HCMP 2155/2018 and raise no issues of great general or public importance.

9.Questions (4), (5) and (10) are also case-specific and do not bear any general or public importance.

10.Question (9) is a hypothetical question which has no bearing on the issues determined in these proceedings.

11.Questions (6) and (8) purport to raise the question of what came first in the eyes of the law, regarding the criminal investigation and the civil proceedings. They are not questions in effect but merely expression of the plaintiff’s view, and in any event have no relevance to the court’s decision in dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and issuing the restricted proceedings order against her in these proceedings.

12.The further questions raised in the written submissions also show no issue of great general or public importance.

13.For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Notice of Motion is dismissed.

14.As the defendant has not responded to the Notice of Motion, we make no order as to costs for this application.

The Plaintiff (Appellant), acting in person

The Defendant (Respondent), acting in person