CHAN SAI LUN, HENRY v. CHAN WAI WAH, LILY-ANN

CACV 143 & 205/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 143 & 205 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA P2 OF 1993)

____________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Ribeiro JA:

1. On 18 January 2000 for the reasons which have been set out in writing, this Court made certain orders in relation to two outstanding appeals (CACV Nos. 143 and 205 of 1998). Those appeals were lodged before this Court by the applicant, Miss Lily Chan, and have recently been set down for hearing.

2. In our order of 18 January, we did three things. First, we ordered the removal of a restriction which had previously been imposed on the applicant taking further part in the proceedings unless and until a guardian ad litem was appointed to act on her behalf. Secondly, we dismissed the applicant's renewed application for a stay of proceedings by the respondent to enforce Barnett J's judgment in his favour together with various associated interlocutory orders sought. Thirdly, we directed that the applicant have leave to set down the pending appeals to be heard together, with one day reserved, provided that they were set down within 28 days of the date when our judgment was handed down.

3. On 8 February the applicant filed a notice setting down the appeals and at the same time she gave notice that she intended to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from the judgment of this Court which I have described.

4. She has today informed us that she wishes to appeal against our refusal of a stay of the proceedings which I have mentioned. I will consider the Motion for leave to appeal before considering the status of a summons which the applicant has also issued for certain interlocutory stays pending the determination of the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

5. In my judgment, the orders sought to be appealed from are undoubtedly interlocutory in character and there is no appeal as of right to the Court of Final Appeal. By section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave is only to be granted in such cases if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. It must be understood that the Court of Final Appeal does not entertain interlocutory appeals unless they have this character of great general or public importance, however important the matter may appear to the applicant in a particular case.

6. There is, in my judgment, as a matter of law, plainly no basis whatsoever for suggesting that the orders made by this Court on 18 January, raise any question of such importance.

7. Accordingly, in my view, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal must be dismissed. It follows that the summons seeking interim measures pending such appeal must also be dismissed.

Hon Mayo VP:

8. I agree entirely. No question has been formulated or can be formulated which could meet the requirements of s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. That being the case this motion is dismissed.