|
FAMV000015/2000
Not for circulation
FAMV No. 15 of 2000
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 15 OF 2000 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMP NO. 3070 OF 1999)
_____________________
| Between: |
|
|
|
LAM LIN TIM, PATRICK |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
LAU MEN KIN, JOHNSON |
Respondent |
_____________________
Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ
Date of Hearing: 30 June 2000
Date of Determination: 30 June 2000
_________________________
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
_________________________
Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:
1. The applicant was the defendant in consolidated actions. One of those actions was brought by a company named Proline Products Inc. We are not concerned with it. The other was brought by the respondent. We are concerned with it. The claim therein was on three loans. They were of RMB108,000, HK$30,000 and US$5,000 respectively. On 22 January 1999 Barnett J gave judgment for the respondent against the applicant on the three loans with interest and costs.
2. On 24 May 1999 the applicant took out an application an extension of time for appealing to the Court of Appeal. Leong JA dealt with that application on paper. He dismissed it. The applicant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal. That renewed application was called on for hearing on 27 July 1999. It was dismissed because the applicant failed to attend. He then applied yet again. This time he attended the hearing. He also sought to adduce further evidence. The hearing took place before the Court of Appeal (Chan CJHC and Wong JA) on 15 March 2000, and was dismissed on the same day.
3. The Court of Appeal said that the trial judge had decided the case on facts and that the applicant had failed to point to any error of law or fact on the trial judge's part. The Court of Appeal also said that the applicant had failed to explain why the fresh evidence was not adduced at the trial and what bearing it would have on the trial judge's judgment.
4. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant him an extension of time and against its refusal to permit him to adduce fresh evidence.
5. Before us he also made an unparticularised request that the respondent produce certain of is financial statements without which, he says, he cannot prove his case. We cannot order the respondent to comply with this request.
6. We see no reasonable prospects of the Court of Final Appeal reversing any part of the Court of Appeal's decision.
7. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.
| (Henry Litton) |
(Kemal Bokhary) |
(William Silke) |
| Permanent Judge |
Permanent Judge |
Non-Permanent Judge |
Representation:
Applicant in person
Mr Christopher S.H. Lam (instructed by Messrs Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung) for the respondent
|