Read the full judgment text of CACV 128A/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 12 March 2013 before Yuen JA, Lam JA, Au J.
Civil appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – s 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 – s 22(1)(a) – whether matter in dispute amounts to or is of the value of $1,000,000 or more – s 22(1)(b) – whether question is of great general or public importance – bankruptcy order – costs order in CACV 161 of 2006 – adjournment – failure to discharge liabilities – Civil appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – s 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 – s 22(1)(a) – whether matter in dispute amounts to or is of the value of $1,000,000 or more – s 22(1)(b) – whether question is of great general or public importance – bankruptcy order – costs order in CACV 161 of 2006 – adjournment – failure to discharge liabilities – Bankruptcy Order made on 14 May 2010 against the Appellant Debtor for failure to discharge liabilities under a costs order in CACV 161 of 2006 arising from an adjournment granted at his request – refusal of stay of bankruptcy proceedings – Court of Appeal dismissed the underlying appeals in CACV 128/2010 and CACV 237/2010 on 1 November 2012 – Appellant applied for leave to appeal to the CFA – Court of Appeal held the case did not fall within s 22(1)(a) as the subject matters were not final judgments concerning a liquidated claim of over $1 million, nor did they involve a property or civil right claim of that value per China Field v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) (No 1) 12 HKCFAR 68, WLK v TMC (No 1) [2009] 12 HKCFAR 473, and Chinachem Charitable Foundation v Chan Chun Chuen [2011] 6 HKC 273 – Appellant's reliance on HCA 4104 of 2001 or HCA 1186 of 2009 as subject matters was misplaced – Court of Appeal further held the s 22(1)(b) threshold was not met as the questions were not of great general or public importance and the Appellant did not rely on this limb – 'otherwise' limb is generally a matter for the CFA – no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal were discernible – Applications for leave dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s 22(1)(a) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance · Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cites 2 cases