Read the full judgment text of FAMV 6/2004 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 8 February 2005 before Rogers VP, Hartmann J, Reyes J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – threshold amount – unliquidated damages – whether claim for unliquidated damages falls within section 22(1)(a) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) – held: no, unliquidated damages are not a liquidated sum and do not satisfy the threshold – residual discretion under section 22(1)(b) – whether discretion should be exercised – held: no, insufficient merit in the points raised – application dismissed with order nisi of costs in favour of the applicant – employees' compensation – loss of earning capacity – avascular necrosis – acceleration of pre-existing condition – failure to undergo surgery – District Court award of $1,138,233.38 plus interest – appeal dismissed – application for leave to CFA dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether claim for unliquidated damages falls within s.22(1)(a) CFAO · Whether residual discretion under s.22(1)(b) CFAO should be exercised
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.