The Incorporated Owners of Million Fortune Industrial Centre v. Charter Favour Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 428/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 June 2007.
1. On 13 March 2007, we dismissed the 2 nd respondent’s appeal from the order of Kwan J who ordered that the company be wound up.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 428/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 428 OF 2006 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 472 OF 2006) ______________ BETWEEN
______________
Before: Hon Tang VP, Chu J and Lam J in Court Date of Hearing: 5 June 2007 Date of Decision: 5 June 2007 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ Hon Tang VP: 1.On 13 March 2007, we dismissed the 2nd respondent’s appeal from the order of Kwan J who ordered that the company be wound up. 2.This is the 2nd respondent’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.I will not repeat the reasons given in the judgment of 13 March 2007. 4.It is sufficient for the present purpose to say that no question of great general or public importance is involved in this appeal, and there is no other reason why leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted. 5.The application is dismissed. Hon Chu J: 6.I agree. Hon Lam J: 7.I also agree. 8.I would like to add that at the beginning of this hearing, Mr Sui sought the dismissal of this application with costs reserved so that he can apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. 9.It is a matter for his client to consider whether they would like to apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal but that should not prevent us from considering his application on the merit and we have considered this application on the merit. 10.I agree for reasons delivered by Tang VP that this application should be dismissed. Hon Tang VP: 11.The application is dismissed with costs.
Mr Sui See Chun, instructed by Messrs Kwan & Chow, for the 2nd Respondent. Mr Anthony Lo, instructed by Messrs Ho & Tam, for the Petitioner. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 428/2006