Spring Enough Ltd v. Limbu Chandrakala

CACV000034/2004

CACV 34/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM NO. LDPE 1532 OF 2003)

_______________________

________________________

Coram: Hon Yeung JA and Lam J in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 May 2004

Date of Decision: 5 May 2004

_____________

DECISION

_____________

Hon Yeung JA (giving decision of the Court):

1.On 31 March 2004, we dismissed the Respondent's appeal against the order of Yuen JA who ordered the Respondent to pay into court arrears of rent of $75,000 and to continue to pay monthly rent of $15,000 to the Applicant as condition for stay of execution of the Lands Tribunal's order of 20 January 2004.

2.The Respondent now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides:

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court-

(a)	as of right, from any final judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of $1,000,000 or more, or where the appeal involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the value of $1,000,000 or more;
(b)	at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any other judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision;.."

4.The decision we made on 31 March 2004 is not a final judgment and the matter in dispute does not amount to $1,000,000. The Respondent must therefore demonstrate that the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.The Respondent has not identified the question of great general or public importance nor can we see any. There is no other reason for the appeal to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.There is no basis whatsoever for us to grant the Respondent leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The application must be dismissed and we so order.

Representation:

Applicant: In person (Represented by Ho Tak Shing, Ho Wan Shan, Joanna).

Respondent: In person (Represented by Elthaf, Chaudhry Muhammad).