TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

CACV 90/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 22164 OF 1998)

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

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

DETERMINATION

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

Leong, J.A. (giving the determination of the Court):

1. The applicant Mr. Tse Jeekeen seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal by this court on 26th May 1999 of his appeal against the judgment of Cheung, J. The judgement of Cheung, J. was on 24th March 1999 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the master's order striking out his statement of claim. In order to enable Mr. Tse to have leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, he must show that his application is one within the ambit of s.22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. S.22 of that ordinance provides in relation to civil appeals to the Court of Final Appeal as follows:

(1) The appeal shall lie to the Court in any civil cause or matter

(a) as of right, from any final judgment of the Court of Appeal where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of $1 million or more or where the appeal involves directly or indirectly, some claims or question to or respecting property or some civil rights amounting to or of the value of $1 million.

(b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any other judgment of the Court of Appeal, whether final or interlocutory, if in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court for decision.

2. Mr. Tse this morning has presented his grounds for his application both in writing and orally. Mr. Tse submits that there is a question of great general or public importance because the respondents hold huge rallies every year commemorating the "June 4 event" and if they stop holding such rallies, he would forego his proceedings against them. He submits that the respondents did not have the right to slander other persons but they told the public at the gatherings, matters which were not true and that is a matter of public importance.

3. Further, Mr. Tse submits that it is his right to have his case tried. Relying on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he says that his case should be tried and a fair trial has been denied to him.

4. We have considered this submission and we do not consider that Mr. Tse has in fact indicated really any question for the consideration of the Court of Final Appeal which is of great and general public importance or otherwise that the Court of Final Appeal should decide his case. For this reason, we dismiss the application with costs to the respondents.