Chow Chiu Yee v. Ho Siu Yeung
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 5/2001 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 24 April 2001 before Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ.
1. The applicant is a decoration contractor. In this action, he is claiming against the defendant for breach of contract which occurred in 1990. He applied to the master to fix a date for trial. This was refused. His appeals to the judge and to the Court of Appeal were also dismissed. The reason is simple. The present action relates to a subject matter which was the same subject matter as a case which he commenced in the Small Claims Tribunal in 1991 against the same defendant. That case was tra
Legal issues: Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal refused.
|
FAMV000005/2001 FAMV No. 5 of 2001 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 5 OF 2001 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL _______________
_______________ Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ Date of Hearing: 24 April 2001 Date of Determination: 24 April 2001 _________________________ DETERMINATION _________________________ Mr Justice Chan PJ : 1. The applicant is a decoration contractor. In this action, he is claiming against the defendant for breach of contract which occurred in 1990. He applied to the master to fix a date for trial. This was refused. His appeals to the judge and to the Court of Appeal were also dismissed. The reason is simple. The present action relates to a subject matter which was the same subject matter as a case which he commenced in the Small Claims Tribunal in 1991 against the same defendant. That case was transferred to the District Court which decided after trial against the applicant. There was no appeal for the last eight years. 2. Before this Committee, the applicant repeats his allegations in support of his case. It is a claim which amounts to less than $1 million and there is no right of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. There is also no point of law of great general or public importance raised because this case involves a purely factual dispute which had already been adjudicated upon. He had offered no satisfactory explanation as to why he did not lodge any appeal against the District Court's decision in the last eight years. Instead, he has started a fresh action on the same subject matter against the same defendant. The present application does not satisfy s.22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. It is refused.
Representation: Applicant in person Respondent in person |