Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v. Harmutty Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 208/2008 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 June 2009 before Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – Order 14 rule 1(2) – summary judgment – exclusion of actions based on allegations of fraud – whether underlying root cause of action based on fraud – whether plaintiff may seek ancillary relief without relying on fraud allegation – whether action fit for Order 14 application – Court of Appeal had determined matter not fit for Order 14 – whether proposed grounds raise question of great general or public importance – interlocutory appeal – consolidated civil appeals – six actions arising from HCA 2763/2004, HCA 2203/2004, and HCA 2746/2004 – application for leave to appeal by the plaintiff/applicant Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Company Limited – application for leave to appeal dismissed – wholly academic to grant leave – subsequent application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal (FAMV 28/2009 to FAMV 33/2009) also dismissed on 14 September 2009.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal regarding Order 14 rule 1(2) and the exclusion of fraud-based claims
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 208/2008, CACV 210/2008, CACV 211/2008, CACV 212/2008, CACV 208/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2763 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- AND CACV 210/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2203 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- AND CACV 211/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2746 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- AND CACV 212/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2763 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- AND CACV 351/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2746 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- AND CACV 352/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2763 OF 2004) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- (Heard together) Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court Date of Hearing: 5 June 2009 Date of Judgment: 5 June 2009 -------------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------------ Hon Rogers VP: 1.In this case, this Court has made clear that, quite apart from anything else, it does not consider that this matter was fit for Order 14. So if one considers the criteria for granting leave in interlocutory appeals, I regret that whether or not there is a question of great general or public importance as regards whether the exact wording of Order 14 rule 1(2) and the exclusion of actions which include a claim by the Plaintiff based on an allegation of fraud and whether that means that an Order 14 application can be made, notwithstanding that the underlying root cause of the action as pleaded is based on fraud, or whether, as the Plaintiff says, it can seek ancillary relief, even though it says that it does not rely on the allegation of fraud, that is a matter in respect of which I would not give leave to appeal. 2.When the matter is considered in the round, even if that is taken to the Court of Final Appeal, there remains the matter as to whether this action was fit for an Order 14 application. This Court was clearly of the view that it was not. 3.In that case, it seems to me that it would be wholly academic to give leave and I, for my part, would not be prepared to give leave. Hon Le Pichon JA: 4.I agree.
Mr Anthony Neoh SC and Ms Barbara Wong, instructed by Messrs W K To & Co., for the Plaintiff/Applicant in all appeals (“PEWC”) Mr Clifford Smith SC and Ms Rachel Lam, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the 18th and 19th Defendants in CACV 208/2008/Respondents (“Blinco & Patagonia”) Mr Simon Westbrook SC and Mr Jeevan Hingorani, instructed by Messrs Gall & Lane, for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 7th Defendants in CACV 210/2008; the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 8th Defendants in CACV 211/2008; and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 17th Defendants in CACV 212/2008/Respondents (“the Corporate Defendants”) Mr Robert Whitehead SC and Mr Steven Kwan, instructed by Messrs Haldanes, for the 4th Defendant in CACV 208, 211, 212, 351 and 352/2008; and the 8th Defendant in CACV 210/2008/Intervener (“Mr Hu”) Mr Edward Alder, instructed by Messrs Kennedys, for the Joint and Several Receivers of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in CACV 208/2008; the 5th Defendant in CACV 210/2008; and the 3rd Defendant in CACV 211/2008 Application for leave to appeal by the plaintiff dismissed by Court of Final Appeal. Please refer to FAMV28/2009 to FAMV33/2009 dated 14 September 2009 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 208/2008