|
CACV267/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 5909 OF 1999)
_________________
BETWEEN
| |
HSIAO, HSIU-YANG |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHU WAI TING |
Defendant |
_________________
Before : Hon Rogers VP and Cheung JA in Court
Date of Hearing : 14 June 2005
Date of Judgment : 14 June 2005
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for an adjournment of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
2. The application for leave to appeal appears to me to be doomed to failure anyway because it is put on the basis of section 22(1)(a) - it seems to me that it cannot possibly come under that for a number of reasons, one of which one can state very simply that the decision in respect of which an appeal is sought was an interlocutory decision – another of which is that there is no specific liquidated sum in respect of which an appeal can be bought.
3. However, quite apart from that, this application is simply an application now for an adjournment and this court would be very reluctant to adjourn sine die an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. I note that the ethos in this day and age is to try and proceed cases with proper expedition. This case has dragged on quite long enough as the plaintiff was pointed out in his written submissions, although he is not here today. It is quite wrong to let this case go on and on in circumstances which have been adequately set out in the judgments, and particularly that of Sakhrani J. To allow this application to be adjourned sine die would simply be to heap more trouble onto a case which should have long since ceased to exist.
5. As has been pointed out by Cheung JA during the course of argument, even if the defendant had considered that it might be appropriate to abandon any appeal, the proper course would seem to me to be to continue with the application and if leave were granted and it was subsequently decided to abandon the appeal, to abandon it then, but not to delay the matter now.
6. So, for all those reasons, this application must be refused.
Hon Cheung JA:
7. I agree.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
The Plaintiff/Respondent, in person (absent)
Mr David Chan, instructed by Messrs Pansy Leung Tang & Chua, for the Defendant/Applicant
Defendant's application for an adjournment of an application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal to Court of Appeal refused. Please refer to CACV267/2004 dated 14 June 2005 |