Transocean Maritime Group Holdings (HK) Co Ltd and Others v. Transocean Maritime Group Holdings Co Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2169/2011 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 19 July 2012.
1. The order setting aside the service of the Writ that I made was an order made on the exercise of the court’s discretion, and in an appeal against an exercise of a judge’s discretion, the authorities are clear that the ambit of the appellate court’s interference is restricted. An appeal should be rare, and the appellate court should be slow to interfere. The Court of Appeal will not intervene unless the appellant can show that the judge had misdirected himself with regard to the legal principl
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 1 case
|
HCA 2169/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2169 OF 2011 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Mimmie Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 19 July 2012 Date of Decision: 19 July 2012 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.The order setting aside the service of the Writ that I made was an order made on the exercise of the court’s discretion, and in an appeal against an exercise of a judge’s discretion, the authorities are clear that the ambit of the appellate court’s interference is restricted. An appeal should be rare, and the appellate court should be slow to interfere. The Court of Appeal will not intervene unless the appellant can show that the judge had misdirected himself with regard to the legal principles in accordance with which his discretion had to be exercised, or had misapprehended material facts, or had taken into account irrelevant matters, or failed to take relevant matters into account, such that the judge’s conclusion was plainly wrong and “outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible”. 2.Having heard counsel on the proposed grounds of appeal, I am not satisfied that I had exercised my discretion under wrong principles of law. It is clear from the Court of Appeal’s decision in China North Industries Investment Limited v Chum [2010] 5 HKLRD 1 that the place of commission of the tort, said to be the starting point in the consideration of the appropriate forum, is no more than a starting point, and in the end it is but one of the factors to be considered by the court. 3.For the reasons set out in my Decision of 12 June 2012, having considered all the relevant factors, I was not satisfied that the plaintiffs had discharged their burden to establish that Hong Kong is clearly and distinctly the most appropriate forum for determination of the real and substantial issues to be dealt with at the trial of the action. 4.The factors taken into consideration in the exercise of my discretion have all been set out in my Decision, and I am not persuaded that they are irrelevant or that any relevant matter had not been taken into account. 5.For these reasons, leave to appeal will not be granted. I am not satisfied that the contemplated appeal has reasonable prospects of success. The application is hence dismissed with costs.
Mr Paul Lam and Mr Tony Chow, instructed by C L Chow & Macksion Chan, for the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs Mr Danny Fung, instructed by Hastings & Co, for the 1st to 6th defendants Please refer to HCMP1574/2012 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2169/2011