Pao Lung Yun Louis v. Fung Chun Fung
|
CACV000111A/1996 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1996, No. 111 ______________
______________ Coram: Hon Nazareth, V-P, Bokhary and Godfrey, JJA in Court Date of hearing: 27 February 1997 Date of judgment: 27 February 1997 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the judgment of the Court) : 1. On 4th February we dismissed the appellant's appeal. He now applies for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. His notice of motion applying for leave does not clearly disclose his grounds. We have accordingly afforded him an opportunity to specify them. We have explained to him the requirements of rule 2 of the Rules regulating appeals from the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong to Her Majesty in Council. As to rule 2(a), which provides for an automatic right of appeal if the subject matter is of the value of $0.5 million or more, he now says that the damages due to him for disturbance, physical assaults, interference and so forth are of the order of over $8 million, even in excess of $10 million. It, of course, does not meet the requirements of rule 2(a) merely to suggest that one's unliquidated claim of damages is of such an amount. The amounts actually specified do not exceed some tens of thousands of dollars. 2. As to whether there is any question which comes within rule 2(b), i.e. a question involved in the appeal which by reason of its great, general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council, he tells us that the matter is of very great importance to him. We do not doubt that this is so. But equally, it cannot be said to be of great, general or public importance. No grounds have, therefore, been shown upon which we could properly grant leave. Leave to appeal is refused.
Representation: Appellant in person Respondent absent |