Hong Kong Kam Lan Koon Ltd v. Realray Investments Ltd
Read the full judgment text of FACV 15/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 April 2010 before Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Mortimer NPJ, Lord Millett NPJ.
1. This appeal comes here by way of leave granted under s.22(1)(a) of the Court’s statute. In other words, it was leave based on the amount of money involved. There was no leave under the “point of law” limb or under the “or otherwise” limb of s.22(1)(b). The appeal consists of an attack on concurrent findings of fact. It consists of nothing else. The Court’s well-known practice is not to review concurrent findings of fact save in special circumstances. A litigant who takes up the Court’s
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Cited by 4 cases
|
FACV No. 15 of 2009 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION FINAL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2009 (CIVIL) (ON APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 79 OF 2008) _____________________ Between:
_____________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Mr Justice Bokhary PJ : 1.This appeal comes here by way of leave granted under s.22(1)(a) of the Court’s statute. In other words, it was leave based on the amount of money involved. There was no leave under the “point of law” limb or under the “or otherwise” limb of s.22(1)(b). The appeal consists of an attack on concurrent findings of fact. It consists of nothing else. The Court’s well-known practice is not to review concurrent findings of fact save in special circumstances. A litigant who takes up the Court’s time without justification delays the access to justice of other litigants waiting in the queue. We asked counsel for the appellant to take half an hour to point to, if he could, any special circumstances in this case which would justify our embarking on a review of concurrent findings of fact. He has endeavoured to do so – with skill but without success. There are no special circumstances in this case to justify reviewing concurrent findings of fact. We decline to do so. That leaves nothing in the appeal. It is dismissed. [Counsel for the respondent asked for costs, and counsel for the appellant did not resist them.] 2.The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Mr K.M. Chong and Mr Aidan Tam (instructed by Messrs Kenneth C.C. Man & Co.) for the appellant Mr Chan Chi Hung SC and Mr Liu Cheong Wang (instructed by Messrs Kao, Lee & Yip) for the respondent |
Other judgments that cite this case