Former Dealing Director of Foreground Securities Co Ltd v. Securities and Futures Commission

Read the full judgment text of CACV 252/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 September 2006.

1. This is the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the reasons for decision of this court (Tang JA and Chu J) which was handed down on 29 May 2006, which affirmed the judgment of Deputy Judge To, striking out the statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

Cited by 3 cases

Case No.CACV 252/2005
Court
Court of Appeal
Date29 Sep 2006
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 252/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2966 OF 2004)

______________

BETWEEN

  Former Dealing Director of Foreground
Securities Company Limited
Plaintiff
  Yick Ming Kit  
  (福廣証劵有限公司前交易董事)
(易明結)
 
  and  
  Securities and Futures Commission
証劵及期貨事務監察委員會
Defendant

______________

 

Before:  Hon Yuen and Tang JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 September 2006

Date of Judgment: 29 September 2006

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.This is the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the reasons for decision of this court (Tang JA and Chu J) which was handed down on 29 May 2006, which affirmed the judgment of Deputy Judge To, striking out the statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

2.The sole issue on this application is whether leave should be granted under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.  No point is taken on the application being made out of time.

3.The written submissions supplied by the plaintiff, which we have considered, contain a litany of complaints against the Securities and Futures Commission.  However, the issues involved in these proceedings had been identified in the judgment, and the most important for the present purpose is that the relevant legislation had not created a private cause of action.  No question of great general or public importance is involved in this proposed appeal.  In fact, the proposed appeal is completely devoid of merit.

4.So the application is dismissed with costs.

(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal
(Robert Tang)
Justice of Appeal

The Plaintiff (Applicant), in person, present.

Mr Jose-Antonio Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Clifford Chance, for the Defendant (Respondent).