Dr Paul Ki Ping Ki v. Next Magazine Publishing Ltd. and Others
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 32/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 December 2000 before Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – defamation actions – set-off – Bankruptcy Ordinance s.35 – whether applicant met threshold for leave. The applicant sought leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision (CACV 175/2000) confirming the order of Madam Justice Yuen refusing him leave to appeal out of time against a Master's order. The underlying issue was whether the 1st respondent could set off its liability to pay the applicant's damages in the second defamation action against its entitlement to costs from the applicant in the first defamation action under s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. The Master held that set-off was available, and the judge and Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion. The Court of Appeal's decision was not a final order, the amount in dispute was not in excess of HK$1 million, and the applicant failed to show any point of law of great general or public importance. The first four grounds of appeal arose from a misunderstanding of procedure and were totally unfounded. The last two grounds concerned the application of s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and were not reasonably arguable, as the Registrar, the judge, and the Court of Appeal had relied on good authorities. Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused. Applicant to pay the respondents the costs of the application.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
|
FAMV000032/2000 FAMV No. 32 of 2000 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 32 OF 2000 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL _____________________
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ Date of Hearing: 8 December 2000 Date of Determination: 8 December 2000 ______________________________ DETERMINATION ______________________________ Mr Justice Chan PJ : 1. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. That decision confirmed the order of Madam Justice Yuen who refused to grant him leave to appeal against a Master's order out of time. 2. The issue in the courts below was this: whether the 1st respondent could set off its liability to pay the applicant's damages in the second defamation action against its entitlement to costs from the applicant in the first defamation action under s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. The Master held that the 1st respondent could. Ten months later, the applicant applied to the judge for leave to appeal out of time. The judge held that even putting aside the delay, the appeal was not arguable. The Court of Appeal agreed. 3. We do not think leave to appeal further should be granted for the following reasons. The decision of the Court of Appeal was not a final order and the amount in dispute was not in excess of $1 million. The applicant has also failed to show that there is any point of law of great general or public importance. Six grounds of appeal are relied on. The first four grounds arise from a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant of the procedure and are totally unfounded. The last two grounds relate to the application of s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance which governs a set off in the case of a bankruptcy. The Registrar, the judge and the Court of Appeal relying on good authorities were clearly right in their decisions. These grounds are not reasonably arguable. 4. For these reasons, we would refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We see no reason why the applicant should not pay the respondent the costs of this application.
Representation: 1st applicant in person 2nd applicant represented by the 1st applicant Mr Richard Khaw (instructed by Messrs T.S. Tong & Co.) for the respondents |