The Liquidators of Wing Fai Construction Co Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) v. Yip Kwong Robert and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 273/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 September 2010 before Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Stone J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – Court of Final Appeal – interlocutory decision – strike out for want of prosecution – Civil Justice Reform – transitional provisions – application made before CJR amendments came into force – whether CJR rules apply – held: they do not apply; rights determined by law at date of application – application for leave dismissed – subsequent grant of leave by CFA (FAMV31/2010) but appeal ultimately dismissed (FACV3/2011).
Legal issues: Application of CJR amendments to strike-out application made before amendments
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 8 cases
|
CACV 273/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 735 OF 2002) ________________________
________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court Date of Hearing: 7 September 2010 Date of Judgment: 7 September 2010 ________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in respect of an interlocutory decision made by this court given in writing on 30 April 2010. 2.The decision of this court given on that date speaks for itself and I do not propose to go into the facts any further. Suffice it to say that many of the issues which are sought to be raised are suggestions that this court considered that it was not applying the current Rules of the High Court following the introduction of CJR. The fact is that this court was. 3.Nevertheless, the crucial point in this case seems to me to be this: that the application to strike out the proceedings for want of prosecution was made on 19 August 2008. That is more than seven months before the CJR amendments came into force. 4.So whatever rules of conduct of an action might or might not apply after the change in the Rules, they simply do not apply to this application, which was launched seven months before the CJR amendments came into force. Even if the submissions which were made, which I consider, incidentally, are not valid, apply to the present conduct of actions, I do not consider that this matter should go to the Court of Final Appeal because the basis upon which the rights of the parties are to be decided must be that of the law as it existed on 19 August 2008 and not on the basis of some subsequent change in the law. 5.For those reasons, I would simply dismiss this application. Hon Le Pichon JA: 6.I agree. Hon Stone J: 7.I agree.
Mr Jeremy Bartlett, instructed by Messrs Richards Butler, for the Applicants/Respondents Mr Barrie Barlow SC, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the 1st to 3rd Respondents/Applicants (I) Leave to appeal granted by Court of Final Appeal to the Respondents by Court of Final Appeal. Please refer to FAMV31/2010 dated 21 January 2011 (II) Appeal by teh Respondents to Court of Final Appeal dismissed. Please refer to FACV3/2011 dated 8 December 2011 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 273/2009