CHANG KING TO v. CHANG KING HIM CLARENCE AND ANOTHER

CACV 513/2019 & CACV 514/2019

[2022] HKCA 959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2518 OF 2015)

________________________

________________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1574 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

(Heard Together)

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 4 April 2022, this Court (Cheung, Chu and G Lam JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge M K Liu given on 21 April 2021 by which he dismissed the plaintiff’s actions against the defendants.

2.  The plaintiff now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 29 April 2022, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

II.  Our view

3.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  The threshold for granting leave is that the issues raised must be reasonably arguable.

5.  The plaintiff has not identified any issue of great general or public importance that should be considered by the Court of Final Appeal. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised. In his written submissions, the plaintiff is just repeating his complaints against the judgment below. Of these complaints, this Court and the Court below have made concurrent findings of fact. The plaintiff is not able to show that it is reasonably arguable that he could overcome the high threshold of challenging these findings.

6.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

7.  For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.