Active Profit Ltd v. Nissho Iwai Hong Kong Corporation Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of FAMV 21/2005 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 2 September 2005 before Chief Justice Li, Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ.
1. This is litigation between participants in an elaborately structured land development joint venture which fell through. Relief was granted to the applicant by Stone J but taken away by the Court of Appeal (Rogers VP and Le Pichon and Cheung JJA). The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. First, it contends that it is entitled to such leave as of right under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. Let us examine that. One begins b
Legal issues: Right to appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) Cap 484
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted as a matter of discretion under s.22(1)(b).
Cited by 1 case
|
FAMV No. 21 of 2005 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 21 OF 2005 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NOS 320 & 332 OF 2003) _____________________ Between:
_____________________ Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Chan PJ Date of Hearing: 2 September 2005 Date of Determination: 2 September 2005 _____________________ DETERMINATION _____________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ: 1.This is litigation between participants in an elaborately structured land development joint venture which fell through. Relief was granted to the applicant by Stone J but taken away by the Court of Appeal (Rogers VP and Le Pichon and Cheung JJA). The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. First, it contends that it is entitled to such leave as of right under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. Let us examine that. One begins by noting that the applicant invokes that part of s.22(1)(a) which covers a “civil right amounting to or of the value of $1,000,000 or more”. The civil right asserted is the right to relief for breach of trust. And the relief in question consists of damages for breach of trust or an account of profits derived from such breach. Those damages or profits require quantification. Therefore they are unliquidated and do not come within s.22(1)(a). Accordingly the applicant is not entitled to leave to appeal as of right. 2.Next, the applicant seeks leave to appeal as a matter of discretion under s.22(1)(b). All things considered, we exercise our discretion to grant leave to appeal. It would not be appropriate to say anything more about the merits in advance of the appeal.
Mr Benjamin Yu SC and Mr Jenkin Suen (instructed by Messrs Kao, Lee & Yip) for the applicant Mr Paul Shieh SC and Mr Bernard Man (instructed by Messrs Clement Ng & Co.) for the 1st respondent Mr Jat Sew-Tong SC and Mr Abraham Chan (instructed by Messrs Hastings & Co.) for the 2nd to 4th respondents |
Other judgments that cite this case