NG HAU WAN v. NG PIK CHU NAOMI

CAMP 30/2018

[2018] HKCA 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 30 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 4557 OF 2014)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.  The plaintiff renews her application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Deputy District Judge J Chow. The Judge had previously refused to grant leave to the plaintiff. We will deal with the application on paper.

2.  The parties are sisters.  The plaintiff who is the elder sister claimed against the defendant the following :

1)  RMB300,000 as a loan to the defendant;

2)  Three  sums  of  money,  namely,  HK$100,000;

HK$130,000 and HK$18,600.  HK$100,000 was said to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the defendant to buy China Mobile shares for her.  HK$130,000 was again said to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the defendant to buy shares for her.  HK$18,600 was money said to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant so that the defendant could buy books for her.  The defendant did not fulfill her obligation and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money paid to the defendant.

3)  Arrears of rental of HK$414,371.42 (HK$473,571.42 less HK$59,200 paid).  The plaintiff let a premises belonging to her to the defendant at HK$15,000 per month and the defendant only paid her $59,200.

3.  The defendant denied that she was liable to the plaintiff.  The defendant claimed that she had at the plaintiff’s direction paid the RMB300,000 to another sister.  She denied that she had received HK$230,000 for the purpose of buying shares for the plaintiff.  Specifically in respect of the HK$130,000, she had received $130,000 from another sister but it was a repayment of a loan that she lent to that sister.  She claimed that she had complied with the plaintiff’s request, used the HK$18,600 and bought the books for the plaintiff.  She claimed the plaintiff allowed her to use the premises rent free.  She had sublet part of the premises on short leases to other people and the HK$59,200 was rent received from the short leases which she had paid to the plaintiff.

4.  The Judge accepted the defendant’s defence and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

5.  The plaintiff’s proposed grounds of appeal are in essence an appeal against the findings of fact by the Judge.  The well established principle is that this Court will only interfere and reverse findings of fact by a trial judge if it is shown that the findings are plainly wrong.  The Judge had the benefit of receiving at first hand the evidence of the parties together with their witnesses.  She also had considered a taped telephone conversation between the parties concerning the sum of RMB300,000. We are not satisfied that it is reasonably arguable that the Judge was plainly wrong in her findings.  Nor is it shown that there is any other reason for leave to be granted.  The plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs which we summarily assessed at HK$25,000.

6.  The application is totally without merits.  Pursuant to Order 59, rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court we order that no party may request the determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing.