LEE CHICK CHOI v. BEST SPIRITS CO LTD

CACV 138/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 138 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCB NO 1128 OF 2015)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By a judgment dated 24 February 2017, we dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the bankruptcy order made against him by L Chan J on 18 May 2015.  At the hearing on 14 February 2017, we had already dismissed the Recusal Application in his summons dated 1 February 2017.   By the same judgment, we dismissed the remainder of his summons, namely, the Discharge Application and the New Evidence Application.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 24 March 2017, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He filed three skeleton submissions on 7, 8 and 28 April 2017. The respondent’s solicitors wrote to the Court on 25 April 2017, stating that, to save costs, they would not file any skeleton submissions in opposition as the notice of motion should simply be dismissed as it is an abuse of process.

3.  Having considered the appellant’s submissions, we take the view that the matter can be disposed of on paper without an oral hearing.  We now hand down our judgment.

4.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, leave to appeal against any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter may be granted if 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 for decision.

5.  On the great general or public importance limb, none of the questions involved in our judgment that the appellant sought to appeal from concerns any great general or public importance.  And we fail to see how on the facts of the present case, the “otherwise” limb could be invoked.

6.  We therefore refuse to give the appellant leave to appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.  The respondent’ solicitors had not filed any skeleton submissions.  In the letter of 25 April 2017, they did not ask for costs should we dismiss the appellant’s notice of motion.  In the circumstances, we will make no order as to costs.