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
|
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
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.
Mr. Kenneth Chan, instructed by Messrs W. K. To & Co., for the plaintiff 4th defendant, in person, present |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 150/2004