WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE v. AU YEUNG YEE MAN representative of the estate of AU-YEUNG WING HONG

CACV 141/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 141 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 1478 of 2009)

_______________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 2 November 2016 we dismissed the appeal with costs at the hearing of the appeal. We handed down our reasons for judgment on 11 November 2016.

2.  The plaintiff (who was the appellant) issued a Notice of Motion on 22 November 2016 seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The court gave directions for the processing of the application on 25 November 2016.

3.  Having considered the materials before us, we decided to deal with the application on paper pursuant to paragraph 11 of the directions.

4.  The relevant criteria for granting such leave are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

5.  In the Notice of Motion, the plaintiff did not set out any questions of great general or public importance.  All the matters set out in the Notice related to her grievance in respect of the trustee in bankruptcy’s refusal to assign the beneficial interest in the property to her and the Director of Legal Aid’s refusal to grant her legal aid.  We cannot discern any question which remotely satisfies the criteria in Section 22(1)(b). 

6.  Quite apart from that, as can be seen from our judgment of 11 November 2016, those matters were not germane to our dismissal of the appeal.

7.  There is no other reason why the appeal ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.  The plaintiff also submitted a bundle of documents on 29 December 2016.  Those documents were not properly filed as the directions of 25 November 2016 did not grant leave for such documents to be filed.  In any event, they could not assist the plaintiff in her application. 

9.  We therefore decline to grant leave and dismiss the motion accordingly.

10.  The defendant had lodged submission opposing the application and the statement of costs sought a sum of $26,784 as costs of the defendant in the application.  We are of the view that the sum is reasonable. We order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs in the application which we fix at $26,784.