Peconic Industrial Development Ltd v. Lau Kwok Fai and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 245/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 June 2008.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court handed down on 18 December 2007.  The application is made under the provisions of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, on the basis that the matters arising are matters of great general or public importance.

Cited by 5 cases · Cites 1 case

Appeal by the plaintiff to Court of Final Appeal dismissed. Please refer to FACV17/2008 dated 27 February 2009
Case No.CACV 245/2006[2008] 4 HKLRD 473
Court
Court of Appeal
Date12 Jun 2008
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

cacv 245 & 248/2006

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal nos. 245 AND 248 of 2006

(on appeal from HCA NO. 3083 of 2002)

________________________

BETWEEN

  PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  LAU KWOK FAI 1st Defendant
  ALBERT K K LUK & CO. (a firm) 2nd Defendant
  K F LAU & CO. (a firm) 3rd Defendant
 

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

Date of Hearing: 12 June 2008

Date of Judgment: 12 June 2008

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court handed down on 18 December 2007.  The application is made under the provisions of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, on the basis that the matters arising are matters of great general or public importance.

2.The parties submitted a consent order but I make it clear again, as has been made clear before, that this court does not give leave on paper on the basis of matters arising under great general or public importance, that it requires the assistance of counsel to make sure that the question has been properly framed.

3.In this case, there is one question which arises and that has been clarified this morning; that is:

“Is a defence of limitation available to a dishonest assister to a fraudulent breach of trust or fiduciary duty.”

4.That, in my view, encapsulates the question which should go to the Court of Final Appeal and I am prepared to give leave on that basis.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

5.I agree.

Hon Stone J:

6.I also agree.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President

(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal

(William Stone)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance

 

Mr John Scott SC and Mr C W Ling, instructed by Messrs Raymond T Y Chan, Victoria Chan & Co., for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Messrs Robin Bridge & John Liu, for the 1st & 3rd Defendants/Respondents in CACV 248/2006 (absent)

Ms Po Wing Kay, instructed by Messrs Philip K Y Lee & Co., for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent in CACV 245/2006

Appeal by the plaintiff to Court of Final Appeal dismissed. Please refer to FACV17/2008 dated 27 February 2009