Cheong Shing Ltd v. Yu Kwan

Read the full judgment text of CACV 68/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 13 October 2010.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. It is made under what is commonly referred to as the “or otherwise” ground.

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Leave to appeal by the 3rd Defendant in HCA2183/2001 refused by Court of Final appeal. Please refer to FAMV40/2010 dated 18 March 2011
Case No.CACV 68/2010
Court
Court of Appeal
Date13 Oct 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 68/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NOS. 12021 OF 1998 AND 2183 OF 2001)

________________________

HCA 12021 /1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 12021 OF 1998

________________________

BETWEEN

  CHEONG SHING LIMITED Plaintiff
  and
  YU KWAN(余昆) Defendant

________________________

AND

HCA 2183 /2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2183 OF 2001

________________________

BETWEEN

  西安民生集團股份有限公司
(trading in its own name AND also trading in the name of
西安民生集團股份有限公司進出口公司otherwise known as西安民生集團進出口公司)
1st Plaintiff
  MINSHEN GROUP (HK) LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  and
  LO KAM WING
(盧錦榮)
1st Defendant
  HON KWAI KING, KALEN
(韓桂琼)
2nd Defendant
  KONG KAI CHEUNG
(江繼祥)
3rd Defendant
  LEE WAI KEUNG
(李偉強)
4th Defendant
  CHEONG SHING LIMITED 5th Defendant

________________________

(Consolidated by the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie dated 6 March 2002)

Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court

Date of Hearing: 13 October 2010

Date of Judgment: 13 October 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. It is made under what is commonly referred to as the “or otherwise” ground.

2.I do not propose to set out what has happened in this case, because that is set out in the reasons for judgment which this court gave on 30 July.

3.It has been the practice of this court, not immutable, but I do not recollect that there has been any exception to it, that when an application for leave to appeal is made on the basis of the “or otherwise” ground, we take the view that it really is a matter for the Court of Final Appeal to decide whether they wish to hear the case or not and, in the circumstances of this case, I consider that is the correct course.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

4.I agree.

Hon Stone J:

5.I also agree.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal
(William Stone)
Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr Peter Ng SC and Mr Norman Nip, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y T Ho & Co, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in HCA2183/2001 and the Defendant in HCA12021/1998/Respondents

Mr Benjamin Chain, instructed by Messrs Chui & Lau, for the 3rd Defendant in HCA2183/2001/Applicant

Leave to appeal by the 3rd Defendant in HCA2183/2001 refused by Court of Final appeal. Please refer to FAMV40/2010 dated 18 March 2011

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACV 68/2010