|
CACV391/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 284 OF 2002)
____________________
BETWEEN
| |
YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON trading as
WILSON YEUNG & CO. |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
CHAN SUI TING |
1st Defendant |
| |
QUAN BING KAY DEREK trading as QUAN & CO. |
2nd Defendant |
____________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 14 April 2005
Date of Judgment: 14 April 2005
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. It is brought on the basis that there is a matter of great general or public importance, and on the basis that the leave should be given under the “or otherwise” limb of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484.
2. As has always been made clear in the judgment of this court, this litigation has descended into satellite litigation of, I am glad to say, unusual but unfortunately immense proportions and this is yet another instance of it.
3. The main ground for complaint, as put forward by Mr Yeung who is now acting in person, is that he has been ordered to pay the costs of the adjournment of the hearing before Master Levy. The reasons why the costs order was so made have been explained by Mr Justice Reyes and by this court and there is no need, in my view, to go into it further.
4. But even if it were wrong, it seems to me it would be wholly wrong for this court to give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on a matter of an order of costs before the Master on an interlocutory application such as this.
5. There are many aspects to this litigation and in the judgment this court attempted to express some understanding for the reasons why this litigation has reached the unhappy stage which it has. But such sympathy as this court would have for the litigants will fast begin to evaporate if this litigation is continued in the manner in which it is. It seems to me wholly wrong that any application should be made for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, whether it be on the basis that there is a matter of great general or public importance, or on any other limb whatever.
6. I have no hesitation in saying that, in my view, this application has to be refused.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
7. I agree.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
The Plaintiff/Applicant, in person (present)
Ms Angela D Gwilt, instructed by Messrs Quan & Co., for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent
|