BabelCite

Wong Yuk Fung v. Woo Chor Wah and Another

Read the full judgment text of CACV 242/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 28 October 2005.

1. On 13 September 2003, Mr Registrar Chan permitted Lehin Securities Limited to be joined as the 2 nd Defendant to this action.  On 31 March 2004, Deputy Judge To dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal the order of Mr Registrar Chan out of time.  On 20 April 2005, we dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal to this court.

Case No.CACV 242/2004
Court
Court of Appeal
Date28 Oct 2005
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 242/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 7091 OF 2000)

______________

BETWEEN

　 WONG YUK FUNG (王玉逢) Plaintiff
　 　 (Applicant)
　 and 　
  WOO CHOR WAH (胡楚華) 1st Defendant
  LEHIN SECURITIES LIMITED 2nd Defendant
  (利興股票有限公司) (Respondent)

______________

 

Before:  Hon Cheung, Tang JJA and A Cheung J in Court

Date of Hearing:    21 October 2005

Date of Decision:   28 October 2005

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

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

1.On 13 September 2003, Mr Registrar Chan permitted Lehin Securities Limited to be joined as the 2nd Defendant to this action.  On 31 March 2004, Deputy Judge To dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal the order of Mr Registrar Chan out of time.  On 20 April 2005, we dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal to this court.

2.The reasons for our decision can be found in our reasons for decision which was handed down on 9 May 2005.  Essentially, we dismissed the appeal because there was a delay of 1 year and 6 months between the order of Mr Registrar Chan and the plaintiff’s appeal to Deputy Judge To, there was no acceptable excuse for the delay, Lehin had been prejudiced by the delay and the appeal had no merit.

3.This is the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from our decision.  Section 22 (1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, is not engaged because no “final judgment” was involved in our decision.  Under Section 22(1)(b), leave may be granted if “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.No such question is involved here.  Nor is there any other reason for leave to appeal.

5.Accordingly, the application is dismissed.  The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the application to the 2nd defendant, to be taxed unless agreed.

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal		 (Robert Tang)
Justice of Appeal		 (Andrew Cheung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Ms Yvonne Y H Chiu, instructed by Messrs Tang & So, for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent.

The Plaintiff/Applicant, in person, present.

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 242/2004

Wong Yuk Fung v. Woo Chor Wah and Another
Court of Appeal20 Apr 2005