Mui Po Chu v. Moi Oak Wah

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 18/2000 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 23 June 2000 before Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ.

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.

Legal issues: Appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) of Cap. 484 · Leave to appeal under s.22(1)(b) of Cap. 484

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Case No.FAMV 18/2000
Court
FAMV
Date23 Jun 2000
JudgeMr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMV000018/2000

(Not for Circulation)
FAMV No. 18 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 18 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV Nos. 257 & 283 OF 1999)

_____________________

Between:
MUI PO CHU Applicant
AND
MOI OAK WAH Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ

Date of Hearing: 23 June 2000

Date of Determination: 23 June 2000

____________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

____________________________

Mr Justice Litton PJ :

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.

2. The two applications before us arise from legal proceedings brought by the applicant against her father. The history goes back many years. The applicant's original grievance against her father sprang from his administration of her mother's estate in which she has 1/6 share. Since then allegations have been piled upon allegations and third parties have been swept within the net. The nature of the applicant's claims can be glimpsed from the Court of Appeal's detailed judgment of 6 April 2000 whereby the applicant's appeal against Yeung J's judgment of 19 August 1999 was dismissed.

3. What we are concerned with principally is the application of s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 to this case : Whether the applicant has an appeal as of right. The Court of Appeal, by its judgment of 29 May 2000, said No. We agree. Nothing said today has added to the applicant's case.

4. As to the provisions of s.22(1)(b), nothing before us suggests that there is any question of great general or public importance involved in the appeal, or that we should otherwise give leave.

5. The application is dismissed.

( Henry Litton ) ( Kemal Bokhary ) ( W J Silke )
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge

Representation:

Miss Mui Po Chu, the Applicant, in person

Mr Moi Oak Wah, the Respondent, absent