NG YAT CHI v. CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND OTHERS

CACV 2 63/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 263 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 424 OF 2005)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1. On 20 May 2016, the court (Lam VP and G Lam J) handed down a decision in respect of an appeal by the 2^nd Plaintiff from the directions given by Yeung VP on 3 May 2016 regarding the preparation of bundles and the conduct of the appeal in CACV 263/2005.

2. On 26 May 2016, the 2^nd Plaintiff issued a Motion seeking an order that the 2^nd Plaintiff “do have fundamental rights to the Court of Final Appeal” from the judgment of 20 May 2016.  The 2^nd Plaintiff intituled his motion as “Application for motion re-directed to CFA based upon articles 35 and 158 of the Basic Law to procure authentic transcripts for appeal”, CACV 263/2005.

3. In substance, we treat the motion as an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The criteria for the grant of leave to appeal in civil matters are set out in Section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. 

4. Directions were given for the disposal of the application without an oral hearing.  The 2^nd Plaintiff queried the court’s jurisdiction to process the application on papers.  The answer lies in Order 59 Rule 14A which gives this court the power to determine interlocutory application without a hearing on the basis of written submissions only.

5. Is the present application an interlocutory one? Applying the application test as prescribed by the Court of Final Appeal in Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd (2003) 6 HKCFAR 503, as the present application would not finally determine the relevant underlying issues in CACV 263 of 2005 if the 2^nd Plaintiff were to get leave, the application is classified as an interlocutory application.  Thus, Order 59 Rule 14A is applicable.

6. In respect of the merits of the application, the 2^nd Plaintiff has not set out any question of great general or public importance in the motion.  Nor did he explain why leave should exceptionally be granted based on the “otherwise limb” in Section 22.

7. We therefore dismiss the application of 26 May 2016.