Iu Po Cheung v. The Commissioner for Census and Statistics

CACV 240/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 753 OF 2007)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Le Pichon, Cheung JJA and Poon J in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 November 2010

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 23 November 2010

________________________

________________________

Hon Le Pichon JA:

1.This is an application by the plaintiff for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from an order of this court of 13 May 2009 dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from an order of A. Cheung J of 10 June 2008. The judge had dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal from an order made by Master Yu striking out the amended statement of claim. The plaintiff appeared in person. At the conclusion of the hearing judgment was reserved which we now give.

2.The background facts are set out in §§2 to 12 of our judgment to which reference should be made and I do not propose to repeat them here.  Suffice it to mention that the plaintiff sought damages on the grounds that the defendant had (1) breached his employment contract;, (2) breached “statutory duties and/or official duties” owed to the plaintiff; (3) acted negligently concerning the appraisal and promotion plaintiff; and (4) made adverse alterations or additions to its appraisal reports with “malice”.

“As of right”

3.The plaintiff submitted that he is entitled to appeal as of right pursuant to section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance because the amount claimed exceeds $4 million.  But the fact remains that his claim is an unliquidated claim and it is settled law that such claims do not fall within section 22(1)(a).

Question of great, general or public importance

4.The plaintiff also submitted that he should be granted leave under section 22(1)(b).  The plaintiff framed the question said to be of great, general or public importance in these terms:

“This is of my great public importance because the defendant cheated the court very seriously and recklessly but all the judges ignored that.”

5.In my view, no question emerges from that statement, much less one of great, general or public importance fit for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.In those circumstances, leave is refused and I would propose that there be an order nisi of costs in favour of the defendant.

Hon Cheung JA:

7.I agree.

Hon Poon J:

8.I agree.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

9.Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of §6 above.

Mr Iu Po Cheung, the Plaintiff/Applicant, in person (present)

Mr Edward Shum, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Defendant/Respondent