LEE SHUK YEE v. LEE SUK PING AND OTHERS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 132

(Civil)

______________

______________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Liu JA:

1. On account of a great many decisions of this court, the application is primarily made under Rule 2(b) of the Order in Council regulating appeals from the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal for Hong Kong to His Majesty in Council, 10 August, 1909.

2. Many derivative points of law have been raised in this application. The diversification of what is largely a common sense solution to this particular dispute on its own merits, into a host of questions said to be of great general or public importance owes much to counsel's unrewarded industry. This is a case in which this court looked at "the overall justice of a matter" and adopted a sensible and equitable approach. Our consideration was not confined to the test of an intentional disregard of a peremptory order, however it was characterised. We have now the added advantage of a recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in Hytec Information Systems Ltd v. Coventy City Council reported in the Times Law Reports, December 31, 1996.

3. This court considered what the interests of justice required in all the circumstances. Nothing this court decided in the judgments complained of can be of any great general or public importance or otherwise within the rule. The application under Rule 2(b) has not been well supported. I would refuse leave to the applicants.

Mayo JA:

4. I agree with my Lord Liu and have nothing to add.

Nazareth V-P:

5. I also agree. Having given careful consideration to Mr Mumford's written submissions and to his oral amplification of them before us, I remain unpersuaded that any question of law of great general or public importance has been raised.

6. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.