Yesland Ltd and Others v. China Furniture City Ltd

Read the full judgment text of CACV 39/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 June 2007 before Tang VP, Chu J.

Civil procedure – appeal – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – interlocutory decisions – conditional leave to defend – subsequent judgment entered for non-compliance with condition – whether leave should be granted – test of great general or public importance – consolidated appeals from Court of Appeal (CACV 39/2006 and CACV 229/2006) – originating from HCA 2091/2004 – appeals consolidated by order of Yeung JA dated 13 October 2006 – substantive Court of Appeal judgment handed down on 16 February 2007 – application for leave to appeal heard on 6 June 2007 – decision of Tang VP and Chu J – the two underlying decisions of Recorder B Yu (conditional leave to defend) and Recorder K Kwok (entry of judgment for non-compliance with condition) are interlocutory for the purpose of appeals to the Court of Final Appeal – following B + B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc [2000] 3 HKCFAR 503, leave should not be granted unless the appeal involves a point of great general or public importance – no such point identified – no other reason to grant leave – applications for leave and for stay of execution dismissed – costs to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed.

Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted for interlocutory decisions on conditional leave to defend and subsequent judgment entered for non-compliance

Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and for a stay of execution pending appeal dismissed; costs to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed.

Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 39/2006
Court
Court of Appeal
Date06 Jun 2007
JudgeTang VP, Chu J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 39/2006 & CACV 229/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2091 OF 2004)

______________

BETWEEN

  YESLAND LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
  SUNCO GROUP LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  OCTERWORTH ENTERPRISES LIMITED 3rd Plaintiff
  and  
  CHINA FURNITURE CITY LIMITED Defendant

______________

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2006

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2091 OF 2004)

______________

AND BETWEEN

   YESLAND LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
  SUNCO GROUP LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  OCTERWORTH ENTERPRISES LIMITED 3rd Plaintiff
  and  
  CHINA FURNITURE CITY LIMITED Defendant

______________

(Consolidated by the Order of Hon Yeung JA dated 13 October 2006)

Before:  Hon Tang VP and Hon Chu J in Court

Date of Hearing: 6 June 2007

Date of Decision: 6 June 2007

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Hon Tang VP:

1.On 16 February 2007, we handed down our judgment in these two appeals.

2.The first appeal which was CACV 39 of 2006 arose out of an application for summary judgment against the defendant by the plaintiffs and concerned the order of Recorder B Yu that the defendant be given conditional leave to defend.

3.Unfortunately that order did not deal with the eventuality of the defendant not complying with the condition.

4.The second appeal, CACV 229 of 2006, concerned the subsequent order made by Recorder K Kwok permitting judgment to be entered against the defendant for failure to comply the condition imposed by Recorder B Yu.

5.Both of these decisions are interlocutory decisions for the purpose of appeals to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.It was so held by the Appeals Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in B + B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc [2000] 3 HKCFAR 503.

7.That being the case, we should not grant leave unless the appeal involves a point of great general or public importance.

8.No such point is involved in either appeal, and there is no other reason why leave should be granted.

9.That being the case, I would dismiss the application.

10.And it also follows that there would be no stay of the execution of the judgment pending appeal.

Hon Chu J:

11.I agree for the reasons given by Tang VP that the application for leave should be refused and the summons for stay of execution should also be refused.

Hon Tang VP:

12.Both applications are dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

(Robert Tang)
Vice-President
(Carlye Chu)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr Thomas T H Kwan, instructed by Messrs F Zimmern & Co, for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs

The Defendant, represented by Mr Wong Pak-sum, a director, in person.