Yeung Shu Lam Wilson t/a Wilson Yeung & Co v. Chan Sui Ting and Another

CACV391/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 284 OF 2002)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 April 2005

Date of Judgment: 14 April 2005

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  It is brought on the basis that there is a matter of great general or public importance, and on the basis that the leave should be given under the “or otherwise” limb of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.

2.As has always been made clear in the judgment of this court, this litigation has descended into satellite litigation of, I am glad to say, unusual but unfortunately immense proportions and this is yet another instance of it. 

3.The main ground for complaint, as put forward by Mr Yeung who is now acting in person, is that he has been ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment of the hearing before Master Levy.  The reasons why the costs order was so made have been explained by Mr Justice Reyes and by this court and there is no need, in my view, to go into it further.

4.But even if it were wrong, it seems to me it would be wholly wrong for this court to give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on a matter of an order of costs before the Master on an interlocutory application such as this. 

5.There are many aspects to this litigation and in the judgment this court attempted to express some understanding for the reasons why this litigation has reached the unhappy stage which it has.  But such sympathy as this court would have for the litigants will fast begin to evaporate if this litigation is continued in the manner in which it is.  It seems to me wholly wrong that any application should be made for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, whether it be on the basis that there is a matter of great general or public importance, or on any other limb whatever. 

6.I have no hesitation in saying that, in my view, this application has to be refused. 

Hon Le Pichon JA:

7.I agree.

The Plaintiff/Applicant, in person (present)

Ms Angela D Gwilt, instructed by Messrs Quan & Co., for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent