MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

CACV 433/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1927 OF 1995)

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Wong JA: (giving the judgment of the court)

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. On 20 October 2000, we dismissed Miss Mui Po Chu's appeal from an order of Suffiad J. The matter arose out of an order made by Master A Cheung on 27 July refusing the applicant's application dated 24 June 2000 for the discovery of documents of a Maywill Limited (a company allegedly owned or controlled by the Respondent) for the sale of the shop at 993 King's Road, Hong Kong and $1,000,000 - which the applicant claimed to have ??? entitlement. Master A Cheung made no order as to costs in respect of that application.

2. The facts and background have been fully set out in our judgment which was handed down on 20 October 2000. There is no need for us to repeat the contents. Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in civil matters is governed by s. 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). The only ground for which leave may be granted is that the question raised in the case involved a point of great general and public importance. In our view, the matter with which we are dealing raises no point of substance let alone any point of great general and public importance. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that she is entitled to be granted leave to appeal against our judgment of 20 October 2000 to the Court of Final Appeal.

3. She is absent this morning and before we commenced sitting she had telephoned our clerks to say that she would not be attending the hearing because she is for some reasons indisposed. We decided to proceed with the hearing and not to adjourn it to another day bearing in mind that there is no merit whatsoever in the application. It is also noted that Miss Mui has been for the past several years a constant and regular litigant of the courts. Most of the time her actions had been dismissed on the ground of lack of merits. This application is clearly one that has no merits and one that should not have been brought. It is a waste of time and public money amounting to an abuse of the process. Accordingly, we refuse the application.