The Joint & Several Liquidators of Kong Wah Holdings Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. Kin Yuen
Read the full judgment text of CACV 253/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 November 2007.
1. This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal has been brought on at short notice with the co-operation of the respondents, the liquidators, because the examination which was the subject of the proceedings is due to take place next week. We have considered the arguments which have been raised this morning. Effectively, there are no new arguments. We have dealt with the arguments in our judgment and, simply, there is very little more to be said. We do not consider that
|
cacv 253/2007 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 253 of 2007 (on appeal from HCCW NO. 49 of 2000) ______________________
BETWEEN
______________________ AND cacv 254/2007 in the high court of the hong kong special administrative region court of appeal civil appeal no. 254 of 2007 (on appeal from HCCW NO. 50 of 2000) ______________________
BETWEEN
______________________ Before : Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court Date of Hearing : 2 November 2007 Date of Judgment: 2 November 2007 ___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.This application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal has been brought on at short notice with the co-operation of the respondents, the liquidators, because the examination which was the subject of the proceedings is due to take place next week. We have considered the arguments which have been raised this morning. Effectively, there are no new arguments. We have dealt with the arguments in our judgment and, simply, there is very little more to be said. We do not consider that this is a matter of great general or public importance. We would emphasise that there is no absolute bar to the obtaining of legal advice. The provision is in the order that the applicant can apply to the person before whom the examination is being conducted to be able to obtain legal advice if he needs to. But, in other respects, we do not wish to say any more than is already in our judgment. 2.For these reasons, we would dismiss this application. (Discussion re costs) 3.Application dismissed, with costs.
Mr Rimsky Yuen SC, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Applicants/Respondents Mr Godfrey Lam, instructed by Messrs Baker & McKenzie, for the Respondent/Applicant |
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 253/2007