Dr. Paul Ki Ping Ki and Another v. Secretary for Justice and Another

CACV 54/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 12669 OF 1995)

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Godfrey, J.A. :

1. This is an application (out of time) for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from an order of this court made on 22 September 1998. Such applications are governed by section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.

2. An appeal lies to the Court of Final Appeal, as of right, in any civil cause or matter from any final judgment of the Court of Appeal where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to a value of a million dollars or more. It cannot be said that this is such a case.

3. There is also a right of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, at the discretion of this court, from any judgment of this court, whether final or interlocutory, if in the opinion of this court, the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its great general public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

4. The ground of appeal advanced by the appellant here is that the judge at the trial of his action was incompetent and that there ought to be a new trial, with a jury. This is not, in our view, a question of great general public importance, although we appreciate that it is of considerable importance to the appellant.

5. We are of the view that any such application as this, if it is to be entertained at all, must be entertained by the Court of Final Appeal itself. It would not be right for us to send this case to the Court of Final Appeal.

6. As to the fact that the application for leave to appeal is made out of time, it is unnecessary for us to express an opinion upon that aspect of the case having regard to the view to which we have taken of the matter.

7. This application will accordingly be dismissed.

8. The respondents ask for an order in the Grepe v. Loam form (see (1888) 37 Ch. D. 168) and we will make such an order.