|
HCMP 517/2010
in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS no. 517 of 2010
(on AN INTENDED appeal from HCA NO. 2717 of 2008)
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
HSBC PRIVATE TRUSTEE (HONG KONG) LIMITED
(the executor of the estate of
Chan Ho Lai Kuen, deceased) |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
HO YUEN PING DOROTHY |
Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA
Date of Decision: 9 April 2010
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Deputy High Court Judge Carlson given on 26 January 2001 whereby the judge allowed the amendment to the re-amended statement of claim.
2. Quite simply the relevant part of the claim is that the plaintiff claims that the deceased paid money into a company which effectively he controlled.
3. In paragraph 18V of the re-re-amended statement of claim it is pleaded:
“It is the plaintiff's case that the amounts withdrawn between 9 January 2004 and 29 May 2007 belonged to the Deceased….”
4. On that basis the objection sought to be taken by the defendant, which amounts to no more than that the proper plaintiff is the company in question, falls to the ground. What is alleged is simply that the company in question was said to be a depositary of the plaintiff's own funds.
5. Any appeal in this matter would be quite futile. The attempt to appeal is simply an attempt to prolong satellite litigation of the most unmeritorious kind. If the defendant considers she is entitled to further and better and particulars she may apply for them. Whether the defendant would be so entitled is not a matter for this court.
6. In the circumstances, I would refuse this application for leave to appeal and make an order under Order 59 rule 2A(8) that since this application is totally without merit, no party may request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes. I would make an order nisi that the costs of this application be to the plaintiff, save and except the costs of the plaintiff’s supplemental skeleton, which was unnecessary and related to matter which should not be taken into account on a pleading point.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
7. I agree.
| (Anthony Rogers) |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
|
| Vice-President |
Justice of Appeal |
|