Wing Hang Bank Ltd v. Richsun International Investment Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 150/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 November 2005.

1. On 22 September 2005 we dismissed the 4 th defendant’s appeal against the order of Rogers VP in which the 4 th defendant was ordered to pay security for costs of his appeal in the sum of $200,000.  We granted the 4 th defendant an extension of 14 days to comply with the order.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.CACV 150/2004
Court
Court of Appeal
Date17 Nov 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 150/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 52 OF 2002)

BETWEEN

  WING HANG BANK LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  RICHSUN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LIMITED
(裕豐國際投資有限公司)
1st Defendant
  CHENG WAI MING also known as
CHENG WAI MING, JOHN
2nd Defendant
  CHENG LAU YUEN YEE 鄭婉儀)
also known as LAU YUEN YEE
3rd Defendant
  LAW KIANG HOI KEN 4th Defendant
  LAW PO HING 5th Defendant
  LAW CHEUK LAM 6th Defendant
  LAW PO CHUN 7th Defendant
  LAW PO KING 8th Defendant
  LAW TIT KIN 9th Defendant
  YEARAN INVERSTMENTS LIMITED
(裕豐投資有限公司)
10th Defendant

Before : Hon Cheung JA and Yeung JA in Court

Date of Hearing : 17 November 2005

Date of Judgment : 17 November 2005

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving judgment of the court) :

1.On 22 September 2005 we dismissed the 4th defendant’s appeal against the order of Rogers VP in which the 4th defendant was ordered to pay security for costs of his appeal in the sum of $200,000.  We granted the 4th defendant an extension of 14 days to comply with the order.

2.The 4th defendant now applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our decision.

3.We will refuse the application as it does not fulfill the requirement of section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.  The 4th defendant does not have a right of appeal because the order we made was an interlocutory one.  Further no issue of great general or public importance is involved and we do not see any evidence in support of the ‘or otherwise’ ground.  Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

4.The 4th defendant has also issued a summons returnable today asking for a stay of execution of our order until the determination of his application for leave to appeal.  The application is now otiose.  We will dismiss the application with costs to the plaintiff.

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
(Wally Yeung)
Justice of Appeal

Mr. Kenneth Chan, instructed by Messrs W. K. To & Co., for the plaintiff

4th defendant, in person, present

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 150/2004