RE Prudential Enterprises, Ltd.

CACV 865/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW 594 OF 1999)

_______________________

______________________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

Hon. Rogers VP:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court of 11 January of this year. The application is made on the footing of section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap.484. What the applicant has to establish is that there are matters of great general or public importance or otherwise the matter should be taken to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. Four points are put forward. The first is the basis upon which the striking-out of a petition should be ordered. This court applied the standard test, which is the plain and obvious test. In my view, the point sought to be taken on this to the Court of Final Appeal is not a point of sufficient merit to warrant granting leave.

3. As regards the other three points, these are not points of great general or public importance, in my view; they are points specific to the particular facts of this case. The court approached the case on the basis that if the respondent to the petition had offered the petitioners everything to which they were entitled, then the petition might be stayed or struck out, or whatever. This court and the court below came to the clear conclusion that that situation did not prevail; the points which are sought to be raised on points 2, 3 and 4 are really disguised issues of fact and are wholly inappropriate for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal at this interlocutory stage.

4. This application, in my view, should be refused.

Hon. Cheung JA:

5. I agree.