Deacons (A Firm) v. White & Case Ltd Liability Partnership and Others

CACV000178B/2003

HCMP 2591/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2591 OF 2003

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA 2433/2002)

_______________________

_______________________

CACV 178/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2433/2002)

_______________________

_______________________

Coram: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court

Date of Hearing: 23 July 2003

Date of Judgment: 23 July 2003

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in respect of two applications. The judgment of this court was given on 11 July with reasons handed down on 15 July. The background to this case can be found in the judgment of 15 July and in the determination of Ma JA, as he then was, of 20 June 2003.

2.The question before the court was whether leave to appeal out of time should be given in respect of two interlocutory decisions of the deputy judge who was originally to hear the case. There was also an appeal in respect of another earlier interlocutory order made by the same judge.

3.The sole grounds of the application for leave to appeal out of time were that the decision should be set aside on the grounds of reasonable apprehension of bias. No mention was made of any matter which went to challenge the correctness of the original decisions. These applications are made under the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. It is therefore necessary for there to be a matter of great general or public importance. The question of bias has been approached on the basis of what are now well-established principles.

4.Despite Mr Burns's efforts this morning, I cannot see that there is any matter of great general or public importance. The points which have been sought to be raised are specific points on the facts of the case. As to that, I would say the matters sought to be raised are not sound, but, in any event, do not constitute matters of great general or public importance.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

5.I agree.

Hon Sakhrani J:

6.I also agree.

Representation:

Mr Alistair McGregor QC and Mr Anderson Chow, instructed by Messrs Clifford Chance, for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Mr Ashley Burns, instructed by Messrs Herbert Smith for the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants