ALL CHINA EXPRESS LTD v. KWOK CHEUK KIN AND OTHERS

HCMP 3292/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3292 OF 2014

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 2223 OF 2014)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.  On 19 December 2014, the applicant (who was the 2^nd defendant in HCA 2223 of 2014) issued a summons applying for leave to appeal against the decision of Au J made on 1 December 2014 granting an interlocutory injunction in respect of the occupation and blockage of portions of Harcourt Road and Connaught Road.

2.  The applicant (then represented by counsel) applied for leave before the judge and leave was refused on 5 December 2014.

3.  The applicant then applied in person to this court for leave by summons.  However, he did not comply with the requirement of Order 59 Rule 2A as his application was not supported by a statement setting out the reasons why leave should be granted. In the summons, the intended grounds of appeal challenged the judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff had raised a serious issue to be tried.  It also purported to raise a question of importance on what constitutes particular, substantial and direct damage under the law of public nuisance.

4.  We are not satisfied that the intended grounds are arguable.  The judge had explained in his judgment 1 December 2014 why he found that there are serious issues to be tried in this case.  The applicant had not pinpointed any error in any specific aspect of such reasoning.  As for the legal question of what constituted particular, substantial and direct damage, for the reasons explained by this court in the leave applications in Lai Hoi Ping v Fok Wai Pong Dominic HCMP 2975 of 2014 and Chiu Luen Public Light Bus Co Ltd v Ng Ting Pong HCMP 3028 of 2014 this should not be a question to be resolved at this stage.

5.  We dismiss the application.  Further, we are of the view that the application for leave is totally without merit and we make an order pursuant to Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the Rules of High Court that no party may request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.