|
CACV 643/2020 &
CAMP 167/2021
(Determined together)
[2021] HKCA 1720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 643 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 129 OF 2019)
____________
BETWEEN
| |
WONG YUK TUNG（黃煜東） |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
WONG PO LING（黃寶齡）
(also known as WONG PO LING CLARA（黃寶齡）) |
Defendant |
____________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 167 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO 899 OF 2012)
____________
BETWEEN
| |
WONG YUK TUNG（黃煜東） |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
WONG PO LING（黃寶齡）
(also known as WONG PO LING CLARA（黃寶齡）) |
1st Defendant |
| |
WONGGENOS ENTERPRISES COMPANY LIMITED
（黃振諾企業有限公司） |
2nd Defendant |
____________
(Determined together pursuant to the Order of
Master Ho, Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 28 May 2021)
Before: Hon Yuen and G Lam JJA in Court
Dates of Written Submissions: 6, 11 and 18 October 2021
Date of Judgment: 19 November 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 13 September 2021 (“Judgment”) dismissing the defendants’ application in CAMP 167/2021 for an extension of time to appeal and striking out the defendant’s Notice of Appeal and dismissing the appeal in CACV 643/2020, for the reasons set out therein.[1]
2. By a Notice of Motion taken out in both sets of proceedings dated 24 September 2021, the defendants seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from our Judgment. Having considered the written materials, we see no reason to depart from the Registrar of Civil Appeals’ direction to the parties that the application be determined on paper without an oral hearing.
3. The defendants’ application plainly falls to be dismissed. On page 2 of the Notice of Motion it is said that the defendants wish to appeal against the 2016 judgment and the amendment. Numbered paragraphs 1 to 8 and 14 to 20 of the Notice of Motion all concern or raise arguments about the 2016 judgment of the Court of First Instance after trial. The defendants had already sought to appeal out of time against that judgment and failed twice in the Court of Appeal in 2018 (in HCMP 620/2017).[2] This is in any event not a matter for an appeal from our Judgment.
4. Insofar as the defendants wish to appeal against our Judgment, paragraphs 9 to 13 of the Notice of Motion raise the question of “What is the Court’s principle about time delay”, “Would it be ‘time delayed’ if the Defendants apply for a copy of trial transcript now”, “is the decision to reject the Defendants’ application based on time delay alone prejudice”, and whether the “delegation” of the issue of the SPC Loan of $2 million to a Master was “prejudice” to the defendants.
5. In our judgment, leave should not be given as the defendants are unable to show any prospects of success in their intended appeal, nor have they shown that the intended appeal would involve any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). The purported questions raised, insofar as they are intelligible, either are not questions of general or public importance at all or are abstract questions that do not arise on the intended appeal.
6. It is unnecessary to deal with Mr Leung’s point for the plaintiff that the refusal in our Judgment to extend time for bringing an appeal is, like a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal, not susceptible to further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
7. The plaintiff’s costs of the application are to be paid by the defendants, summarily assessed in the sum of $45,000.
| (Maria Yuen) |
(Godfrey Lam) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Written Submissions by Mr Paul H M Leung, instructed by Edmund Cheung & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid for the Plaintiff
Written Submissions by the 1st Defendant, unrepresented, acting in person
The 2nd Defendant was represented by the 1st Defendant
|