DR LEUNG KAM CHUNG KENNETH v. MS CHEN HIU YIN

CACV 304/2023,[2024] HKCA 1063

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 2359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 304 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1220 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By this court’s judgment dated 25 June 2024,[1] the Applicant’s appeal against Coleman J’s refusal to grant him leave to apply for judicial review[2] was dismissed.

2.  By Notice of Motion filed on 23 July 2024, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal from this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  The parties have lodged written submissions and, in the case of the Applicant, revised written submissions, which we have examined as appropriate.

4.  We do not see any reason to depart from the general practice of dealing with and determining an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Practice Directions 2.1.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484), this court may grant leave to appeal if “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 of Final Appeal] for decision”.

6.  The Notice of Motion sets out 10 proposed grounds of appeal which may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The case involves important and serious public interest issue of filing false instrument.

(2)  The case involves false statements being made by the judge.

(3)  The case involves the filing of false statements to the court by the putative respondent.

(4)  The case involves wrong decision.

(5)  The case involves very inappropriate and improper procedure in many ways including non-observance of the legal rights of the Applicant.

(6)  The putative respondent has been very oppressive, obstructive and unhelpful, violating the spirit of friendly resolution of any alleged water seepage problem as advocated by the pamphlet published by the BD/FEHD Joint Office.

(7)  The case involves use of inaccurate tests’ results and raised the question of planting and forging of evidence.

(8)  The case involves gross obstruction and unhelpfulness by the putative respondent and non-observance of the legal rights of a member of the public.

(9)  The case involves abuse of power.

(10)  The case involves creation of false allegation and excessive exaggeration from the judges.

7.  We have examined the Applicant’s submissions which need not be set out again here.  Suffice it to say that they in essence repeat the points made by the Applicant in his appeal to this court which we rejected for the reasons set out in our judgment dated 25 June 2024.  In our view, it follows from the matters set out in our judgment that the above grounds do not involve any reasonably arguable question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  As to the residual discretion to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b), it is not the practice of this court to deal with this basis: see e.g. Incorporated Owners of Hip Wo House v Gallant King Development Ltd (CACV 429/2006, 7 September 2007), §6; Maeda Kensetsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Bauer Hong Kong Limited [2020] HKCA 768, §27.

9.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

10.  We make an order nisi that the Applicant is to pay the putative respondent’s costs assessed in a sum of $14,416.