Esquire (Electronics) Ltd v. The Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd and Another

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 19/2007 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 1 June 2007 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.

1. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is sought under – and solely under – the “or otherwise” limb of s.22(1)(b) of the Court’s statute.  It is well established that the granting of leave under this limb is an exceptional course.  Having considered the arguments put forward for the purpose of seeking leave to appeal, we see no reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment being reversed.  Leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

Outcome: Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to the respondent.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.FAMV 19/2007
Court
FAMV
Date01 Jun 2007
JudgeMr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMV No. 19 of 2007

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 19 OF 2007 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 312 OF 2005)

_____________________

Between:

  ESQUIRE (ELECTRONICS) LIMITED Plaintiff
(Applicant)
  and  
  THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED 1st Defendant
(Respondent)
  WAYFOONG PROPERTY LIMITED
(formerly known as HS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED)
2nd Defendant

_____________________

And Between:

  MAGIC SCORE LIMITED Plaintiff
(Applicant)
  and  
  THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED 1st Defendant
(Respondent)
   WAYFOONG PROPERTY LIMITED
(formerly known as HS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED)
2nd Defendant

(by original writ and order to carry on)

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 1 June 2007

Date of Determination: 1 June 2007

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ :

1. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is sought under – and solely under – the “or otherwise” limb of s.22(1)(b) of the Court’s statute.  It is well established that the granting of leave under this limb is an exceptional course.  Having considered the arguments put forward for the purpose of seeking leave to appeal, we see no reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment being reversed.  Leave to appeal is refused accordingly.

2. [Without opposition, costs were awarded to the respondent.]

(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(Patrick Chan)
Permanent Judge
(RAV Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge

Mr Martin Lee SC, Mr Paul Harris SC and Mr Newman Lam (instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) for the applicant

Mr John Jarvis QC, Mr Joseph Fok SC and Mr Eugene Fung (instructed by Messrs Johnson Stokes & Master) for the respondent