|
DCCJ 2631/2015
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 2631 OF 2015
-------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
利高環球投資有限公司 |
Plaintiff |
| |
(TOP PROFIT GLOBAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD) |
|
| |
and
|
|
| |
環球智庫顧問有限公司 |
Defendant |
| |
(GF GLOBAL CONSULTANTS LIMITED) |
|
-------------------------
| Before: Deputy District Judge Mak in Chambers (Open to public) |
| Date of Hearing: 17 March 2017 |
| Date of Decision: 22 May 2017 |
-----------------------
DECISION
----------------------
Introduction
1. After trial, I dismissed the claim of the plaintiff by my judgment delivered on 7 December 2016.
2. By a summons dated 3 January 2017, the plaintiff applied for leave to appeal.
Legal principles
3. Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance provides:-
“(2) Leave to appeal shall not be granted unless the judge, the master or the Court of Appeal hearing the application for leave is satisfied that…
(a) the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success;
(b) there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.”
4. The test of whether an appeal has a reasonable prospect of success under the new statutory provision is the same test as applied before the amendment to Cap 336, ie whether the applicant for leave can show that he has an arguable case with reasonable chances of success on appeal as is laid down in Ma Bik Yung v Ko Chuen [2009] 3 HKC 359. A reasonable prospect of success means an appeal with prospects that are more than “fanciful” but which do not need to be shown to be “probable”: see Wing Tat Haberdashery Co Ltd v Elegance Development & Industrial Co Ltd, HCMP357/2011, 8/7/2011, unreported.
5. Where the appeal is against the exercise of a discretion, the appellant ought to demonstrate that the decision was plainly wrong, or that the trial judge has taken irrelevant matters into consideration or has ignored relevant matters: see SMM v TWM (Child: Relocation) [2010] 4 HKLRD 37 at 48.
The intended grounds of appeal
6. On the face of it, the plaintiff put forward 5 intended grounds of appeal. However, upon a closer look, the plaintiff is in fact dissatisfied with the findings of the court.
7. The plaintiff sought to make further submission in respect of paragraphs 12, 15, 19, 23, 27, 28 and 29 of the judgment, in an attempt to reverse the findings of the court.
8. It is suffice for me to say that I am not persuaded that the submission of the plaintiff has any merit.
Conclusion and order
9. Therefore, I do not think the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success, nor do I see there is any other reason in the interests of justice that the appeal should be heard.
10. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application is dismissed.
Costs
11. Costs should follow the event. I order that the plaintiff shall pay the defendant the costs of the summons with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.
| |
(Brian Mak)
Deputy District Judge
|
The plaintiff represented by Mr Ng Yung Lung (伍湧龍), appeared in person
Mr Vincent Lam, instructed by Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen & Co, for the defendant
|