Grand Pacific Equity Ltd v. R.S.H. Sports (HK) Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 99/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. I have examined the questions set out in the Notice of Motion and I have also heard what Mr Leong has submitted. I do not however consider that any of the questions are ones which raise great, general or public importance.
Cites 1 case
|
CACV 99/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO.99 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA 4713 OF 2003 ) ______________________ BETWEEN:
Before: Hon. Yuen JA and Hon Sakhrani J in Court Date of hearing and decision: 30 March 2007 ---------------- DECISION ---------------- Hon. Yuen JA: 1.I have examined the questions set out in the Notice of Motion and I have also heard what Mr Leong has submitted. I do not however consider that any of the questions are ones which raise great, general or public importance. 2.This was an interlocutory appeal on a procedural matter. I do not see any ground under the “or otherwise” limb for the matter to be brought to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.Accordingly I see no reason to grant leave. Hon. Sakhrani J: 4.I agree. (After hearing submissions on costs) Hon Yuen JA: 5.Costs to the respondent on the application.
Mr Chan Chi Hung SC and Mr Jeremy SK Chan instructed by Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates & Ellis for the Plaintiff (Appellant), the respondent on the application for leave. Mr Alan Leong SC and Mr Hectar Pun instructed by Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong for the 3rd Defendant (Respondent), the applicant for leave. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 99/2006