Hong Kong Ferry (Holdings) Co. Ltd. v. Chan Kwan Fat and Others

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 8 January 1998.

1. The applicants' appeal was dismissed on 5 January 1995. The Lam Island appeal had already been determined by this Court. It was clear at that time the result of the appeal would depend upon the Lam Island case if that went to the Privy Council. In those circumstances this Court made provision for the defendants to apply for leave to appeal should the Lam Island case in the Privy Council eventually result in a decision in their favour. They now make an application for leave to appeal to the Co

Case No.
Court
Date08 Jan 1998
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000094A/1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1994, No. 94
(Civil)

HONG KONG FERRY (HOLDINGS) COMPANY LIMITED
AND
CHAN KWAN-FAT & 4 OTHERS

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

Coram: Mortimer, V.-P., Godfrey, J.A. and Wong, J. in Court

Date of Judgment: 8 January 1998

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

D E C I S I O N

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

Mortimer, V.-P. (giving the decision of the Court) :

1. The applicants' appeal was dismissed on 5 January 1995. The Lam Island appeal had already been determined by this Court. It was clear at that time the result of the appeal would depend upon the Lam Island case if that went to the Privy Council. In those circumstances this Court made provision for the defendants to apply for leave to appeal should the Lam Island case in the Privy Council eventually result in a decision in their favour. They now make an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under that provision.

2. It comes before us late because there has been considerable difficulty, it would appear, in them being granted legal aid. That was not done until August 1997. This application was then made thereafter. So it comes before us. This is not opposed. The application is under s. 22(10)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) under the "otherwise" provision. It is quite clear that leave ought to be granted in this case. Leave is granted.

Costs of today should be costs in the appeal.

(Barry Mortimer) (G.M. Godfrey) (M. Wong)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Erik Shum (M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) for 1st, 7th, 11th, 12th and 18th Defendants/1st-5th Appellants

Mr Johnson Lam (M/s Gallant Y.T. Ho & Co) for Plaintiff/Respondent