Master Co. (A Firm) v. Shum Yip-utc (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 26/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 January 2000 before Litton PJ, Ching PJ, Bokhary PJ.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – extension of time – application for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal's refusal to disturb trial judge's finding as to number of jackets covered by contract – whether extension of time should be granted – contract for sale of men's jackets – defendant asserted 400,000 jackets, judge found 62,160 jackets – Court of Appeal ordered enquiry as to damages but did not disturb trial judge's finding on quantity – defendant late in filing notice of motion for leave to appeal – application for extension of time refused by Court of Appeal on grounds that case was stale (contract made in 1989) and that defendant faced concurrent findings of fact against him on the number of jackets – whether to extend time and grant leave – Appeal Committee shared Court of Appeal's view – no extension of time granted – no leave to appeal granted – application dismissed – applicant appeared in person – respondent absent.
Legal issues: Whether to extend time and grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Application for extension of time and leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
|
FAMV000026/1999 FAMV No. 26 of 1999 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 26 OF 1999 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 26 OF 1999) _____________________
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton, PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ Date of Hearing: 21 January 2000 Date of Determination: 21 January 2000 ________________________ DETERMINATION ________________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 1. The applicant, who trades under the style of Master Company, was the defendant at the trial. We will refer to him as "the defendant". The action arose out of dealings between the plaintiff company as the buyer, and the defendant as the seller, of a number of men's jackets. 2. Faced with a claim, the defendant defended and counterclaimed. The judge dismissed both the claim and the counterclaim. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of his counterclaim. 3. That appeal succeeded, but not to the extent which the defendant had hoped. The Court of Appeal ordered an enquiry as to the damages suffered by the defendant. But it so ordered without disturbing the judge's finding that the contract related to only 62,160 jackets rather than the larger number of 400,000 asserted by the defendant. The defendant wishes to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal to disturb that finding by the judge. 4. But the defendant was late in filing his notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. So he asked the Court of Appeal to extend time for him to seek such leave from them and, if they so extended time, to then grant him such leave. 5. The Court of Appeal refused to extend time, saying that the case was already stale since the contract in question was made in 1989 and, furthermore, that the defendant was confronted with concurrent findings of fact against him on the number of jackets to which the contract related. 6. Having failed to obtain an extension from the Court of Appeal, the defendant is now before us. He asks us to extend time and, if we do, to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 7. All things considered, we share the Court of Appeal's view on the question of an extension. There will be no extension. Therefore there will be no leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. This application is dismissed.
Representation: Applicant in person Respondent absent |
Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 26/1999