Theincorporated Owners Ofchampion Court v. Pangping Fan Peter Manyuk Ying Vivian

HCMP 172/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 172 OF 2010

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 317 OF 2006)

___________________________

BETWEEN

______________

Before: Hon Tang VP and Le Pichon JA in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 22 April 2010

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Tang VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.The background to this application can be gathered from the judgment of Deputy Judge Mayo dated 5 January 2010 (“the judgment”).

2.By his decision dated 5 March 2010, Rogers VP refused the 1^st and 2^nd defendants’ leave to appeal from the judgment

3.The defendants applied by summons dated 22 March 2010 for an order under O. 59 r. 2C. The defendants claimed that they had not received the decision until 18 March 2010. However, the decision was sent by registered post to each of the defendants and were both delivered on 9 March 2010. So it is clear that the application made on 22 March 2010 was out of time. That was treated by Rogers VP as an application for enlargement of time to do so, since the application was not made within 7 days from the date the decision of 5 March 2010 was delivered to the defendants. Rogers VP refused to grant an extension of time.

4.Now the defendants have by summons dated 13 April 2010 applied for leave to appeal from the decisions of Rogers VP made on 5 March 2010 and 30 March 2010 respectively.

5.We will deal with the applications on the merits, namely, whether leave to appeal from the judgment of Deputy Judge Mayo should be granted. We are satisfied that, for the reasons given in his decision, Rogers VP was plainly right in refusing leave to appeal on 5 March 2010.

6.That being the case, it follows that it does not matter whether the application made on 22 March 2010 was made within time or not.

7.The application for leave to appeal from the judgment is so devoid of merit that we also make an order under O. 59 r. 2A(8) that the defendants may not request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.