Poon Ting Chau v. Wong Kwok Chi and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 65/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 June 2009.
1. The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 19 February 2009.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case
|
CACV 65/2007 and CACV 66/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 5314 OF 2002) ---------------------- BETWEEN
And IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2903 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
Before : Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court Date of Hearing : 5 June 2009 Date of Decision : 5 June 2009 Date of Reasons for Decision : 9 June 2009 --------------------------------------------- REASONS FOR DECISION ------------------------------------------- Hon Cheung JA (giving reasons for decision of the Court) : 1.The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 19 February 2009. 2.The plaintiff complained that the Court was not validly constituted to hear his appeal. This is misconceived. Any appeal against an interlocutory judgment is to be heard by two justices of appeal of the Court of Appeal, see : section 34B(4)(a) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4). The judgment in question was an interlocutory judgment : Shell Hong Kong Limited v. Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd & Another [2003] 3 HKLRD 62. The fact that the two judges of the Court of Appeal who heard the plaintiff’s appeal attended the same class in university is an irrelevant consideration concerning the validity of the constitution of the Court. 3.In any event the application did not fulfil the requirement of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). No issues of great, general or public importance or otherwise which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision had been identified by the plaintiff. 4.Accordingly the application was dismissed with costs assessed at $15,000 to the 1st defendant.
Plaintiff in both appeals, in person, present Mr. Matthew T. S. Tse, instructed by Messrs Tang, Lee & Co., for the 1st Defendants in both appeals |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 65/2007