Ho Yuen Ki Winnie v. Ho Hung Sun Stanley and Another

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 52/2008 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 26 September 2008 before Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA.

Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – great general or public importance – application dismissed – indemnity costs – Leung Ho Sing & Others v Shung Yiu Tung cited. The Court of Appeal held that a complaint that the court correctly stated the law but misapplied it does not raise a question of great general or public importance. A rehash of previous arguments relying on assessment of evidence and discretion also does not meet the threshold. The application was dismissed with indemnity costs ordered forthwith.

Legal issues: Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – great general or public importance

Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.

Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal by the Defendants dismissed. Please refer to FAMV52/2008 dated 19 December 2008
Case No.FAMV 52/2008
Court
FAMV
Date26 Sep 2008
JudgeRogers VP and Le Pichon JA
Case Document
100%Judiciary

cacv 329/2007

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 329 of 2007

(on appeal from HCA NO. 1097 of 2006)

________________________

BETWEEN

  HO YUEN KI WINNIE(何婉琪) Plaintiff
  and  
  HO HUNG SUN STANLEY (何鴻燊) 1st Defendant
  SO SHU FAI AMBROSE (蘇樹輝) 2nd Defendant

________________________

Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 26 September 2008

Date of Judgment: 26 September 2008

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  No doubt there are sufficient assets around for the matter to be taken there but that does not give rise to questions of great general or public importance. 

2.The first question:  Mr Shieh quite candidly said in the course of argument this morning that this court had expressed the law correctly, but applied it wrongly.  That does not raise a question of great general or public importance.  That is just a question as to whether, on the basis that we did not go wrong on the law, we went wrong on the application, which is quite different.  Cases are not authority for the facts which they decide.  They are only authority for the propositions of law.  So as far as I am concerned, there is nothing in question 1.

3.Question 2 is simply a rehash of the arguments which were before this court and before the judge below.  The matter is really an assessment of the evidence and a matter of the exercise of the court's discretion.  I cannot see that these are questions of great general or public importance.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

4.I agree.

(Discussion re costs)

Hon Rogers VP:

5.On the basis of the authority of Leung Ho Sing & Others v Shung Yiu Tung, it does seem appropriate that if this court considers that there is no proper ground for applying for a case to go to the Court of Final Appeal on the basis of great general or public importance, this court should express that view clearly in the award of costs. 

6.In those circumstances, we do so and we make an order for an indemnity cost to be paid forthwith. 

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President

(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal

Mr Martin Lee SC and Mr Erik Shum, instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr Paul Shieh SC, instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants

Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal by the Defendants dismissed. Please refer to FAMV52/2008 dated 19 December 2008
Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under FAMV 52/2008