|
CACV 39/2006 & CACV 229/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2006
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2091 OF 2004)
______________
BETWEEN
| |
YESLAND LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
SUNCO GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
OCTERWORTH ENTERPRISES LIMITED |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHINA FURNITURE CITY LIMITED |
Defendant |
______________
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 229 OF 2006
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2091 OF 2004)
______________
AND BETWEEN
| |
YESLAND LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
SUNCO GROUP LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
OCTERWORTH ENTERPRISES LIMITED |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHINA FURNITURE CITY LIMITED |
Defendant |
______________
(Consolidated by the Order of Hon Yeung JA dated 13 October 2006)
Before: Hon Tang VP and Hon Chu J in Court
Date of Hearing: 6 June 2007
Date of Decision: 6 June 2007
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
Hon Tang VP:
1. On 16 February 2007, we handed down our judgment in these two appeals.
2. The first appeal which was CACV 39 of 2006 arose out of an application for summary judgment against the defendant by the plaintiffs and concerned the order of Recorder B Yu that the defendant be given conditional leave to defend.
3. Unfortunately that order did not deal with the eventuality of the defendant not complying with the condition.
4. The second appeal, CACV 229 of 2006, concerned the subsequent order made by Recorder K Kwok permitting judgment to be entered against the defendant for failure to comply the condition imposed by Recorder B Yu.
5. Both of these decisions are interlocutory decisions for the purpose of appeals to the Court of Final Appeal.
6. It was so held by the Appeals Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in B + B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc [2000] 3 HKCFAR 503.
7. That being the case, we should not grant leave unless the appeal involves a point of great general or public importance.
8. No such point is involved in either appeal, and there is no other reason why leave should be granted.
9. That being the case, I would dismiss the application.
10. And it also follows that there would be no stay of the execution of the judgment pending appeal.
Hon Chu J:
11. I agree for the reasons given by Tang VP that the application for leave should be refused and the summons for stay of execution should also be refused.
Hon Tang VP:
12. Both applications are dismissed with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
(Robert Tang)
Vice-President |
(Carlye Chu)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Mr Thomas T H Kwan, instructed by Messrs F Zimmern & Co, for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs
The Defendant, represented by Mr Wong Pak-sum, a director, in person.
|