Chan Shun Kei t/a Chan Shun Kei Construction Works v. Hong Kong Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd (Formerly Known As Hong Kong Construction (Holdings) Ltd)
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 2/2011 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 2 September 2014 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Procedure — Leave to Appeal — Deputy Judge’s Order — Costs — The plaintiff sought leave to appeal against the construction of the Judgment and costs orders made by a deputy judge. The court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success nor any error in law or procedural irregularity that would justify leave. There was no established practice to refer orders back to deputy judges for clarification or amendment without regard to finality and expeditious case resolution. The plaintiff was advised of the appropriate appeal process against costs if grounds existed. Leave was refused and costs were summarily assessed at $70,000.
Legal issues: Leave to Appeal Against Deputy Judge’s Order
Outcome: Refusal of leave to appeal
Cited by 13 cases
|
HCCT 2/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 2 OF 2011 ____________
____________ Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers (Open to Public) Date of Hearing: 2 September 2014 Date of Decision: 2 September 2014 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.In this case, I am not at all satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated that there are any reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal. Nor is there any other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. The plaintiff only has sought to reargue the matter of the construction of the Judgment and the costs orders. It had been given adequate opportunity to make these arguments at the hearing on 25 June 2014. The plaintiff has failed to show that I had exercised my discretion under wrong principles of law, or had taken into account irrelevant factors. There is no general practice that a judgment or order of a deputy judge MUST or should be referred back to the deputy judge for clarification or amendment. It will not be conducive to the underlying objectives of the RHC, to ensure that a case is dealt with as expeditiously as reasonably practicable, and to ensure that the resources of the court are distributed fairly, for each and every case in which an order of the deputy judge is made, to be referred back to the deputy judge, without regard to time considerations, and the substance of the alleged amendment or clarification required of the order. Nor will it be fair to the parties to the litigation, who should be entitled to expect that there should be finality of the disputes. 2.Even if the plaintiff can show that there may be reasonable prospects, I do not consider in this case that the plaintiff should be given leave to appeal against the orders made. As Counsel for the defendant has rightly pointed out, if the plaintiff considers that the costs order made in the Judgment was wrong, it should appeal against such order under the Judgment if the plaintiff considers and can establish that there are grounds to appeal. 3.I am therefore not satisfied that leave should be granted and refuse the application for leave. I will hear the parties on costs. 4.Costs summarily assessed at $70,000.
Mr Eric Chung, instructed by Robin Bridge & John Liu (assigned by the Director of Legal Aid), for the plaintiff Mr Osmond Lam, instructed by Mayer Brown JSM, for the defendant | ||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 2/2011