TSUI KOON WAH v. LAM KING YUEN AND OTHERS

cacv 92/2005

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

civil appeal no. 92 of 2005

(on appeal from HCA NO. 890 OF 2003)

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Rogers Acting CJHC (giving judgment of the court):

1.  This is yet another chapter in what has become extended litigation over what should be quite a simple matter.  The course this litigation is taking is becoming more and more complex.  This Court tried to simplify the matter as best it could but is obviously failing.  We are now faced with a Notice of Motion in respect of an application to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The application is in respect of an order for costs made by the judge below. 

2.  It has to be said that, first of all, there is no great, general or public importance involved in this matter and furthermore, I do not see any reason why the ‘or otherwise’ provision should apply.  Orders for costs are essentially matters within the discretion of the court making that order.  In this instance it is the Court of First Instance and the Judge of the Court of First Instance who made those orders.  Under section 14(3) of the High Court Ordinance, there would be no appeal from an order for costs made by a judge of the Court of First Instance, unless specific leave were given in respect of that. 

3.  The major point which Mr Tsui had sought to raise in respect of the costs was that there had been an estoppel, and that was dealt with.  Estoppel simply did not arise.  He sought to raise other points.  Some of those other points were simply unarguable and the rest of the matters were matters of discretion for the judge below and this Court simply could not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the judge below. 

4.  In those circumstances, this application has to be refused.