Donpower Trading Ltd v. Apexcom Ltd

Read the full judgment text of CACV 172/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 April 2010.

1. The plaintiff applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment dated 27 January 2010.

Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case

Case No.CACV 172/2009
Court
Court of Appeal
Date29 Apr 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 172/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 172 OF 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 2095 OF 2008)

________________________

BETWEEN

  DONPOWER TRADING LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  APEXCOM LIMITED Defendant

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung JA, Lunn and Wright JJ in Court

Date of Hearing : 29 April 2010

Date of Decision : 29 April 2010

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :

1.The plaintiff applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment dated 27 January 2010.

2.In our view the plaintiff is entitled to appeal as of right under the second limb of section 22(1)(a) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484).  The plaintiff’s claim was for, among other things, a declaration that it was entitled to forfeit the deposit of $1.5 million arising from the sale of a property.  We held that it was not so entitled and must return it to the defendant.  The result of the disposal of the appeal is to impose immediately on the plaintiff a financial detriment in the liquidated sum of $1.5 million which satisfies the statutory requirement that the appeal involves ‘some claim … to … property or some civil right’ or ‘some … question … respecting property or some civil right’ of the specified amount : see China Field Ltd v. Appeal Tribunal (Building) No. 1 (2009) 12 HKCFAR 68 at paragraphs 21, 24 and 25.

3.If this requirement is satisfied, it does not matter that the plaintiff’s claim may include other reliefs which do not meet this requirement.

4.We are, however, not satisfied that the section 22(1)(b) requirement has been met.  But since the plaintiff is entitled to appeal as of right we shall grant the plaintiff leave to appeal conditional upon the plaintiff providing security in the sum of $400,000 within 21 days.

(Peter Cheung)

(Michael Lunn)

(A. R. Wright)

Justice of Appeal

Judge of the Court of First Instance

Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr. Raymond Lau, instructed by Messrs Leung, Tam & Wong, for the Plaintiff

Mr. Albert Yau, instructed by Messrs Tso Au Yim & Yeung, for the Defendant

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case