|
CACV299/2003 & CACV87/2004
CACV299/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003
(ON APPEAL FROM THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER DATED 15 SEPTEMBER 2003
BY THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED
BY THE HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS
UNDER SECTION 33(3) OF THE PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS ORDINANCE, CAP. 50)
_______________________
BETWEEN
| |
PETER PO FUN CHAN |
Appellant |
| |
and |
|
| |
HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS
(A Body Corporate, incorporated under the
Professional Accountants Ordinance, Cap.50) |
Respondents
(also “the Society”) |
_______________________
CACV87/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 3059 OF 2003)
_______________________
BETWEEN
| |
PETER PO FUN CHAN |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
(Constituted by the Hong Kong Society of
Accountants under Section 33(3) of the
Professional Accountants Ordinance, Cap. 50
on 8 December 2000) |
Defendants |
_______________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 April 2005
Date of Judgment: 22 April 2005
J U D G M E N T
Hon Rogers VP:
1. These are applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in two cases which were heard together by this Court.
2. As regards CACV299 of 2003, the points sought to be raised have been dealt with in the judgments of this Court. As pointed out in those judgments, many of the points now sought to be raised were pertinent in the earlier case reported in [2001] 1 HKLR 779. Mr Chan has made wide-ranging submissions, both in writing and orally, but I regret I can see no question of great general or public importance which would merit this Court granting leave to appeal.
3. In relation to CACV87 of 2004, again, the matters sought to be raised have been dealt with in the judgments of this Court. The appeal to this Court was the second appeal and, to date now, three courts have held that the plaintiff has no case fit for trial. I see no ground for granting leave to appeal.
4. Underlying the applicant’s discontent with the various judgments is the applicant’s sense of grievance because papers have been, at least, secretly copied from his files and sent under cover of anonymous letters. That in itself does not create any ground for leave to appeal. We have been shown a copy of the petition which has been sent to the Acting Chief Executive, but that is a matter which has to take its own course.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
5. I agree.
Hon Stone J:
6. I also agree.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
(William Stone)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Appellant/Applicant in CACV299/2003 and Plaintiff /Applicant in CACV87/2004, in person
Mr Jonathan Harris, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Respondent/Respondent in CACV299/2003
Mr Jonathan Harris, instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons, for the Defendant/Respondent in CACV87/2004
|