Ccs v. Lsm

CACV 126/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 12462 OF 1999)

______________

BETWEEN

______________

Before:  Hon Tang JA and Yam J in Court

Date of Hearing:  27 May 2005

Date of Decision:  27 May 2005

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Hon Tang JA (giving the decision of the Court):

1.These proceedings arose out of an application by the husband to vary a consent order for maintenance in favour of his former wife. 

2.On 2 April 2004, leave to appeal was granted by Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J.  On 24 February 2005, we allowed the appeal and we handed down our reasons on 8 March 2005.  This is the former husband’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the amount involved, the appeal is not as a right and we have explained to the applicant that his application is governed by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance which provides as follows:

“An appeal shall lie to the Court –

(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.We asked the applicant whether he could identify any such question or issue and he has frankly told us that he was unable to do so.  Nor can we.  The applicant’s real complaint is that our decision is wrong and he has submitted to us detailed explanation why according to him we were wrong.

5.But even if it is arguable that our decision is wrong that is not sufficient for leave to be given.  Moreover, looking at our decision as objectively as we can, we believe that the appeal is bound to fail.  The former husband’s application for variation of the maintenance order should end here and not be allowed to go any further. 

6.For these reasons, we refuse leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  We make no order as to costs.

Petitioner (Respondent), in person, present

Respondent (Appellant), in person , absent