|
CACV 10/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2011
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 571 OF 2010)
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
WISE THINK GLOBAL LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
FINANCE WORLDWIDE LIMITED |
Defendant |
| ____________ |
| Before: Hon Yuen, Kwan and Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Hearing and Judgment: 28 February 2013 |
| Date of Reasons for Judgment: 5 March 2013 |
___________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
___________________________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the reasons for judgment of the court):
1. On 23 December 2010 Recorder Anderson Chow SC gave an order for specific performance for the sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a property at a purchase price of $18m.
2. The defendant appealed and by a majority, this court (differently constituted) allowed the appeal.
3. The plaintiff applied to this court for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the basis that it was entitled to appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, cap. 484, and alternatively, on the ground that the appeal involved questions which were of great general or public importance.
4. It was clear to us that the plaintiff is entitled to leave as of right under s.22(1)(a) as the appeal directly involves a claim to property of a value of $1m or more. The contrary position advanced on behalf of the defendant was inarguable. The claim was for specific performance of a particular piece of property, and it is not the defendant’s case that its value had decreased from $18m to less than $1m.
5. Accordingly we gave leave subject to the usual conditions with security in the sum of $400,000 to be paid into court within 28 days.
6. In prior correspondence, the plaintiff’s solicitors had invited the defendant’s solicitors to save costs by consenting to the application on the s.22(1)(a) ground. The defendant rejected this approach. As we took the view that the defendant’s opposition to the application was inarguable, we ordered that, whilst the costs of the application for leave should be costs in the cause of the appeal, the costs of the hearing should be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff forthwith. After a gross sum assessment, we ordered the defendant to pay $70,000 to the plaintiff as the costs of the hearing.
(MARIA YUEN)
Justice of Appeal |
(SUSAN KWAN)
Justice of Appeal |
(M H LAM)
Justice of Appeal |
Mr Edward Chan, SC and Mr Allen M Y Lam, instructed by Edward Ko & Company, for the Plaintiff
Mr Jenkin Suen, instructed by Gallant Y T Ho & Co, for the Defendant
|