CHUNG KAU v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

CACV122/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 3397 OF 2002)

______________________

______________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Ma CJHC :

1. On 2 April 2004, this Court (comprising Yeung JA and me) ordered the Plaintiff to provide security for costs in the sum of $110,000 within 28 days of that date.  The reasons for that decision were handed down on 8 April 2004, setting out the background to the applications that led to the order for security as well as giving the reasons.  The Plaintiff was absent for the hearing on 2 April 2004.

2. By an application dated 27 April 2004, the Plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal the said order to the Court of Final Appeal.  It is implicitly recognized in the application that section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484 is applicable.  The questions that the Plaintiff asserts to be of great general or public importance are set out in the application.

3. This application can be disposed of shortly.  Even on the assumption, which I do not readily make, that the questions involve matters of great general or public importance, they are completely without merit or factual basis.  Further, no grounds exist to engage the “otherwise” provision in section 22(1)(b) either.

4. Today, Mr Chung, who has made submissions on his own behalf, has emphasized the strength of the merits of his appeal in respect of which the order for security was made.  With respect, the very highest that the merits of that appeal can be put is that they are arguable.  I see no reason why the order for security for costs was in these circumstances wrong.  The application is therefore dismissed.

Hon Yeung JA :

5. I agree with the judgment of the Chief Judge.

Hon Burrell J :

6. I also agree.