Louis Pao v. Leung Kim Ping t/a Brothers Co.

HCMP002403A/1985

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Li, V.-P., Fuad & Kempster, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing:  21st February 1986.

Date of Judgment:  21st February 1986

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Kempster, J.A.:

1. The applicant seeks the leave of this Court to appeal to Her Majesty in Council against our refusal on 10th of December of last year to allow him to apply to us out of time for leave to appeal from decisions of Judge MoClelland, originally and on review, given in the District Court on 8th October 1984 and 17th May 1985.

2. For an hour and a quarter this morning the plaintiff has explained to us again in considerable detail his various complaints against the defendant, against the judge below and, in the sense that he has explained the grounds which he would wish to urge on the Board, against us in relation to the exercise of our discretion last December.

3. The conditions allowing leave to appeal to Her Magisty in Council from an Interlocutory Order, as our Order of 10th of December 1985 was, are set out in the Order in Council which is called Statutory Instrument No. 2059 of 1957, and rule 2(b) of that Order in Council reads:

"Subject to the provisions of these rules an appeal should lie - at the discretion of the court from any - judgment of the court, whether final or interlocutory, if in the opinion of the court the question involed in the appeal is one which by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for decision."

We appreciate that to the applicant the matters in question are extremely important; possibly to the degree of obsession. He has submitted that the good standing of the Hong Kong government and of the Hong Kong courts are brought in issue. We do not share his view and do not feel that any question of great general or public importance has been shown or that for any other reason the matter arising from the exercise of our discretion on 10th December 1985 should be submitted to Her Majesty in Council.

4. For these reasons the application is refused.

Representation:

Plaintiff in person

Defendant by Miss Leung Yuet Shiu