Yen Wing Choi and Others v. Match Power Investment Ltd
Read the full judgment text of CACV 5/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 December 2010 before Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Lunn J.
Civil law – contract – construction of settlement agreement – whether absence of negotiations forms part of factual matrix – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) s.22(1)(b) – great general or public importance – "or otherwise" ground – application for leave by defendant Match Power Investment Limited – the parties had entered into a settlement agreement and the dispute concerned its meaning and effect – trial judge (HCA No. 1829 of 2005) construed the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs – Court of Appeal (CACV 5/2010) upheld the trial judge's construction, Le Pichon JA stating the judge correctly construed the meaning of the settlement agreement and its effect, with the other members of the court agreeing – the defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on two bases: first, that there was a matter of great general or public importance, namely whether the absence of negotiations forms part of the relevant factual matrix for construing a contract, and alternatively whether the same applies where the issue is whether an agreement has the effect of settling an outstanding claim; and secondly, under the "or otherwise" ground based on a post-script observation by the Court of Appeal that the defendant had behaved badly – the Court of Appeal held that the proposed points were entirely peripheral to the main point of simple construction of the agreement and did not constitute matters of great general or public importance – the "or otherwise" point was not a matter upon which leave would be granted, and the Court of Appeal noted it usually leaves such matters to the Court of Final Appeal to decide – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused – Court of Appeal (Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Lunn J) – 21 December 2010 – subsequent application to the Court of Final Appeal (FAMV2/2011) also dismissed on 16 June 2011.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal should be granted under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484
Outcome: Defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACV 5/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2010 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1829 OF 2005) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Lunn J in Court Date of Hearing: 21 December 2010 Date of Judgment: 21 December 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 from a judgment of this court given on 12 November of this year. The application is put under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, on two bases: first, it is said that there is a matter of great general or public importance; and secondly, it is said that the leave should be given under the “or otherwise” ground. I see no basis for giving leave on either ground. 2.The appeal to this court was an appeal in relation to a construction of a document, a fairly simple document, and the kernel of this court’s judgment is in paragraph 29 of the judgment where Le Pichon JA said:
With that sentiment, the remainder of the court agreed. 3.The points which are sought to be raised are entirely peripheral and minor and they do not, in my view, constitute matters of great general or public importance. The first one is,
and secondly,
4.In my view, these points are entirely peripheral to the main point, which was the simple construction of the agreement. 5.The point sought to be made on the “or otherwise” ground relates to an observation by this court, which was made right at the end of the judgment in the form of a post-script, where this court indicated that they considered that the defendant had behaved badly. 6.That is not a matter upon which leave would be given under the “or otherwise” ground, and in any event, as Mr Mok has said in the course of argument, this court usually does not give leave under the “or otherwise” ground and leaves the matter to the Court of Final Appeal to decide, if an application is made on that basis. 7.I would, therefore, refuse leave to appeal. Hon Le Pichon JA: 8.I agree. Hon Lunn J: 9.I too agree.
Mr Paul Shieh SC and Mr Michael Yin, instructed by Messrs Siao, Wen and Leung, for the 2nd to 7th Plaintiffs/Respondents Mr Johnny Mok SC and Mr Jenkin Suen, instructed by Messrs Chu & Lau, for the Defendant/Applicant Defendant's application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed by Court of Final Appeal. Please refer to FAMV2/2011 dated 16 June 2011 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 5/2010