Greatworth Industrial Ltd v. Chevalier (Construction) Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 43/2006 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 13 October 2006 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Burrell J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this Court dated 27 July 2006.  The background facts to this case can be gleaned from the judgment of this Court and the judgment in the court below of Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie given on 22 December 2005.

Legal issues: Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – great general and public importance

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.

Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed: see FAMV43/2006 dated 15 December 2006
Case No.FAMV 43/2006
Court
FAMV
Date13 Oct 2006
JudgeHon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Burrell J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

cacv 36/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 36 of 2006

(on appeal from HCA NO. 41 of 2002)

______________________

BETWEEN

  GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  CHEVALIER (CONSTRUCTION) Defendant
  COMPANY LIMITED  

______________________

Before : Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Burrell J in Court

Date of Hearing : 13 October 2006

Date of Judgment : 13 October 2006

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this Court dated 27 July 2006.  The background facts to this case can be gleaned from the judgment of this Court and the judgment in the court below of Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie given on 22 December 2005.

2.The application was put on three grounds.  The first ground, namely, that there was an appeal as of right because of the value of the claim, was rightly withdrawn by Mr Cheuk in view of the authorities that were drawn to his attention by Miss Wong, SC, who appears on behalf of the Defendant.

3.As regards the question of great general and public importance, there are two difficulties, it seems to me.  First of all, these are matters of fact and really Mr Cheuk had to argue the case on the basis that even assuming the finding of fact by the judge that the Plaintiff could not have performed this contract, he might have been able to perform some other contract if the contract had been varied in some way.  The other aspect of it is that I do not see how it can possibly be a matter of great general or public importance.  It is only a matter which is relevant to this particular contract and this particular situation.

4.The arguments in relation to the ‘or otherwise’ limb again turn, it seems to me, on questions of fact, if not a question of variation of the contract.

5.In my view, this Court should not give leave to appeal.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

6.I agree.

Hon Burrell J:

7.I agree.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal
(M P Burrell)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr Calvin Cheuk, instructed by Messrs Ho & Ip, for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Ms Lisa K Y Wong SC and Ms Liza Jane Cruden, instructed by Messrs Wong & Fok, for the Defendant/Respondent

Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed: see FAMV43/2006 dated 15 December 2006
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 43/2006