Yu Man V.The Liquidators of C. A. Pacific Securities Ltd

CACV 347/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 37 OF 1998)

-----------------------------------

BETWEEN

-----------------------------------

Before : Hon Woo VP, Cheung JA and Chu J in Court

Date of Hearing : 30 September 2005

Date of Judgment :  25 October 2005

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

Hon Woo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application by the applicant Mr Yu Man for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment dated 12 November 2003.  By that judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order and decision made on 23 August 2002 by Yuen J (now Yuen JA).

2.The applicant has filed lengthy submissions in support of this application.  On the hearing of this application on 30 September 2005, we granted leave to the applicant to file written submissions within 10 days to respond to the skeleton submissions of the respondent, and ordered costs of that day to be in the cause, abiding by the outcome of this application.  As a result he has filed another set of submissions consisting twelve pages.

3.The applicant relies on both paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 to ground this application. 

4.His claim is against the liquidators of CA Pacific Securities Limited (“the Company”) for the return of 130,000 shares in “Sino Land” (Company No. 0083 on the Stock Exchange), subject to his payment of the price for them incurred shortly prior to the order for winding up, together with damages (including punitive damages) for wrongful detention.  It is obvious that it is not a liquidated claim for $1 million and its value cannot rightly be considered to be of that amount, to qualify for the application of section 22(1)(a) of the Ordinance.

5.Under section 22(1)(b), in our judgment, there is no question involved in the proposed appeal that is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  This case was decided on the facts of its own, in that there was a shortfall in the quantity of the shares that should be distributed amongst some clients of the Company and that on the facts the applicant was found to belong to this class of clients, but the shares that were with the Company had been mixed, making it impossible to ascertain which shares annexed to which client.  Nor is there any ground upon which we should exercise our discretion under the “or otherwise” limb of section 22(1)(b).

6.The applicant’s lengthy submissions refer to the facts that he alleges to be in favour of his case and what he considers to be the applicable law in support of his argument that the chances of success of his proposed appeal are extremely high.  We do not agree; we have made this clear in our judgment of 13 November 2003. 

7.In the circumstances, the application is dismissed with costs.

Mr Bernard Man, instructed by Messrs Heller Ehrman, for the Respondents, the Liquidators

The Applicant, Mr Yu Man, in person