Jaw Siu Wah t/a William Trading Co v. Kowloon-canton Railway Corporation

Read the full judgment text of CACV 326/2003 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 November 2004.

1. On this application, Mr Jaw has represented himself.  He seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court which was given on 3 September, with reasons handed down on 8 September.

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.CACV 326/2003
Court
Court of Appeal
Date24 Nov 2004
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV326/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

  HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 3054 OF 2002)

______________________

 

BETWEEN

  JAW SIU WAH
trading as WILLIAM TRADING COMPANY
Plaintiff
  and  
  KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION Defendant

______________________

Before:  Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Hartmann J in Court

Date of Hearing:  24 November 2004

Date of Judgment:  24 November 2004

________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Rogers VP: 

1.On this application, Mr Jaw has represented himself.  He seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court which was given on 3 September, with reasons handed down on 8 September.

2.The points which he has sought to raise are the same points, essentially, which were raised in this court and, for that matter, in the court below.  For the reasons which we have given in the judgment of this court and in the judgment of the court below, these points do not have legal merit. 

3.In any event, because of the size of the claim, it being less than $1 million, in order for leave to be given, it is necessary for the proposed appellant to show that the questions involved ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal  by reason of their great general public importance.  The questions which were sought to be raised in this case are specific to this case, and this case alone, and are not matters of great or general public importance.

4.For those two reasons, I do not consider that this court should grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

Hon Le Pichon JA:

5.I agree.

Hon Hartmann J:

6.I agree.

Hon Rogers VP:

7.The application is dismissed, with costs.

(Anthony Rogers)  (Doreen Le Pichon) (Michael Hartmann)
Vice-President Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance

The Plaintiff/Applicant in person (present)

Mr Bernard Man, instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons for the Defendant/Respondent