Case Document

100%

FAMV Nos 65-77 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 65 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 218 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	EVERWIN INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

and

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 66 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 219 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	FEDERAL INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 67 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 220 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	GLOBALINK INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 68 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 221 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	SUPERIOR CORPORATION LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 69 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 222 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	SOUTHERN KING LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 70 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 223 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	SUNTEX HOLDINGS LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 71 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 224 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	WEST COAST LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 72 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 225 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	NEW CONCEPT INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 73 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 226 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	UNION STAR INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 74 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 227 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	FAR EAST INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 75 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 228 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	STANDARD INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 76 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 229 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	GOLDEN SANDS LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

And

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 77 OF 2008 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 230 OF 2008)

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

BETWEEN
	SOURCE INC. LIMITED	Plaintiff/Applicant
	and
	MTR CORPORATION LIMITED	Defendant/Respondent

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

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Hearing: 27 March 2009

Date of Determination: 27 March 2009

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

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

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

Mr Justice Chan PJ:

1.Mr Kenneth Chan for the applicants submits that they are entitled to appeal as of right. The decision made by the Deputy Judge under Order 18 rule 19 was clearly not a final judgment for the purpose of s.22(1)(a) of the Court’s statute. See Sam Woo Bore Pile Foundation Ltd v China Overseas Foundation Engineering Ltd, FAMV No. 21 of 2007. In the light of this case, Mr Chan feels unable to advance any further arguments in addition to what was contained in his written submission. It is also accepted that Order 14A did not apply to this case. In any event, this alternative basis for MTRC’s application was never dealt with by the Deputy Judge and did not form any part of his decision.

2.Leave is also sought on the ground that the proposed appeals involve several points of law of great general and public importance. Several questions have been formulated in the Notice of Motion and elaborated upon by Mr Chan before us. But the real complaint is that the Court of Appeal had made procedural errors and that the applicants’ appeals should not have been dismissed without hearing the applicants on the merits. In support of this ground, Mr Chan applies to adduce as evidence Madam Lin’s affirmation deposing to the events leading to the hearing before the Court of Appeal and what happened before that court.

3.Looking at Madam Lin’s affirmation de bene esse, it is clear that prior to the hearing before the Court of Appeal, she was already aware that the appeals were expedited and that the Court of Appeal was anxious to deal with the matter on the scheduled date, 21 August 2008. She knew that leave for the applicant companies to act by their director had been refused on the day before and having been explained the consequences of this, she acknowledged to her former solicitors that she was not giving any further instructions or costs on account. To a large extent, it was her own choice that there was no one to address the Court of Appeal at the hearing. We take the view that in the circumstances of this case, it was entirely within the court’s discretion to dismiss the appeals. The complaint is fact specific and we fail to see how it can be said that any point of law of great general public importance is involved. It must also be noted that the Court of Appeal at the end of the hearing commented that there was no merit in the appeals. We are inclined to agree with that conclusion.

4.Accordingly, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.