DR PAUL KI PING KI v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

FAMV No. 32 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 32 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 175 OF 2000)

_____________________

______________________________

DETERMINATION

______________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ :

1. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. That decision confirmed the order of Madam Justice Yuen who refused to grant him leave to appeal against a Master's order out of time.

2. The issue in the courts below was this: whether the 1st respondent could set off its liability to pay the applicant's damages in the second defamation action against its entitlement to costs from the applicant in the first defamation action under s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance. The Master held that the 1st respondent could. Ten months later, the applicant applied to the judge for leave to appeal out of time. The judge held that even putting aside the delay, the appeal was not arguable. The Court of Appeal agreed.

3. We do not think leave to appeal further should be granted for the following reasons. The decision of the Court of Appeal was not a final order and the amount in dispute was not in excess of $1 million. The applicant has also failed to show that there is any point of law of great general or public importance. Six grounds of appeal are relied on. The first four grounds arise from a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant of the procedure and are totally unfounded. The last two grounds relate to the application of s.35 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance which governs a set off in the case of a bankruptcy. The Registrar, the judge and the Court of Appeal relying on good authorities were clearly right in their decisions. These grounds are not reasonably arguable.

4. For these reasons, we would refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We see no reason why the applicant should not pay the respondent the costs of this application.