EUGENE JAE-HOON OH v.KATE GASKELL RICHDALE

CACV 162/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 380 OF 2002)

---------------------

---------------------

-----------------------

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------

Hon Woo VP (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. By a notice of motion dated 3 November 2005, the plaintiff applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from our judgment handed down on 7 October 2005, which dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge Lam (now Lam J) who ordered the plaintiff’s statement of claim to be struck out and the action to be dismissed with costs. 

2. The application is made under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 to seek the exercise of our discretion pursuant thereto in favour of the plaintiff, on the ground that the questions involved in the intended appeal ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision by reason of their great general or public importance, or otherwise.  

3. The notice of motion sets out six questions of law in relation to the law of “malicious prosecution” in the context of a striking out application. 

4. We consider that the questions posed are settled and we are not persuaded that they should be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5. We do not agree with the plaintiff’s contention that there is any merit in the intended appeal.  There is no basis for granting the application under the “or otherwise” limb of section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance either.

6. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed with costs.