Hui I Mei v. Cheng Yau Shing

CACV000157A/1996

CACV No.157/1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 1996

(ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT DIVORCE JURISDICTION NO.1449 OF 1995)

______________

_______________

Coram : Hon Chan, CJHC, Mayo and Leong, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing : 29 April 1998

Date of Decision : 29 April 1998

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Chan, CJHC :

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.

2. The order or judgment of the Court of Appeal by which the applicant feels aggrieved was given on 20th November 1996. He was clearly out of time. He gave a number of reasons for this delay. He said that he had already lodged an application in 1997 to the Privy Council and there was a delay by the Privy Council in replying to him. Then came the handover of Hong Kong to the PRC. He said that he also went to the Court of Final Appeal to make enquiries but he still did not know how to go about making an application for leave.

3. We are not satisfied with the explanations given by the applicant. The letter he wrote to the Privy Council was in December 1996 and the reply was given in January 1997. There were then still sufficient time if he was minded to go further to proceed from there before the Privy Council ceased to be the highest court in Hong Kong. In any event after 1st July 1997, the Court of Final Appeal started to operate very soon after that date. There were months of delay which was not satisfactorily accounted for. On this ground alone, we would refuse the application for leave to appeal out of time.

4. We have also considered the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal. He relies on a number of grounds which were set out in his written submissions. We do not propose to deal with each one of them. Suffice it to say that some of them are irrelevant and some of them, including his allegation of the wife's misbehaviour and his wife's proposal to deal with the property in question since the Court of Appeal made its order, are matters which should be handled by the Family judge upon an application to be made pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeal.

5. There is also no evidence as to the monetary amount which the applicant is claiming that brings this application within the provision which allows an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal to be lodged as of right. We suspect that in any event that the amount in dispute is far less than $1 million.

6. For these reasons, the application for leave to appeal out of time is refused.

Representation:

Applicant - Cheung Yau Shing - in person

Respondent - Hui I Mei - in person