Case Document

100%

CACV 62/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCB NO. 8954 OF 2007)

----------------------

RE: YUEN OI YEE LISA

EX PARTE: LAM KIT SEONG MIRANDA

----------------------

Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Suffiad J in Court

Date of Hearing: 6 May 2008

Date of Judgment: 6 May 2008

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

Hon Rogers VP:

1.These are two applications today. The first is an application by summons. On that, the applicant/proposed appellant has requested three things.

2.The first is that this court should reconsider matters which have already been decided, namely as to whether there had been compliance with an order made by this court on 18 March. Unfortunately, this was already decided by this court. This court gave the appellant the final chance to comply with that order, and there has now been a final order. As regards that, this court cannot reopen the matter because this court is functus officio.

3.The second order which is sought relates to the provision of finance effectively for the appellant, requesting that there should be a payment by this court for property which belonged to the appellant. That is not an order which is open to this court to make.

4.The third matter which is sought on the summons is that the appellant should be permitted to continue with various actions which she has started, most of which are now in the District Court.

5.This court can understand the strongly felt feelings by the appellant that she should be allowed to continue with actions which are more to right a wrong about which the appellant feels gravely, but unfortunately now these constitute choses in action which are vested in the Official Receiver, and it is not open to this court to allow the appellant to conduct those proceedings without reference to the Official Receiver. It is now for the Official Receiver, as the trustee in bankruptcy, to conduct those proceedings as the Official Receiver sees fit. So it is not open to this court to make the order which is sought under paragraph 3.

6.Finally, the appellant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The only basis upon which that could be done is under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. In order for this court to be able to give leave, we would have to be satisfied that there are questions of great general or public importance which require the decision of the Court of Final Appeal, and, unfortunately, I have to say that I do not see that any such question arises.

7.So both applications, in my view, fall to be dismissed.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

8.I agree.

Hon Suffiad J:

9.I agree.