|
FAMV000021/2000
(Not for circulation)
FAMV No. 21 of 2000
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 21 OF 2000 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV No 43 & 44 OF 2000)
_____________________
| Between: |
|
|
|
SHIH MEI CHIN |
Applicant |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
JOHNSON STOKES & MASTERS |
Respondent |
_____________________
Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
Date of Hearing: 25 July 2000
Date of Determination: 25 July 2000
__________________________
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
__________________________
Chief Justice Li:
1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.
2. On 16 November 1999, the applicant issued two originating summonses, HCMP 7112 and 7113 of 1999, against the respondent, claiming compensation. In the first summons, she claimed compensation of $127,665 for negligence against the respondent "who was entrusted to deal with the matter of attestation of Kui Ming Company in 1988". In the second summons, she claimed compensation of $10 million for repeated negligence against the respondent "in dealing with the matter of attestation of Yuen Hing Chong Company Limited on 3 May 1997". On 14 December 1999, she applied to the Master by summonses for decisions in her favour.
3. On 30 December 1999, on the respondent's application, the Master struck out the applicant's originating summonses and her summonses for decisions in her favour.
4. On 19 January 2000, her appeal against the Master's decision was dismissed by Yam J with costs.
5. On 5 April 2000, her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed with costs. The judgment of the Court of Appeal set out the background and their reasons for dismissing her appeal.
6. On 30 May 2000, the Court of Appeal dismissed with costs the applicant's application for leave to appeal to this Court.
7. The applicant has now applied to us for leave. In our view, the criteria for the grant of leave are plainly not satisfied. We are here concerned with interlocutory orders relating to the striking out. And there is clearly no question involved which by reason of its great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court for decision.
8. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
| (Andrew Li) |
(Henry Litton) |
(Kemal Bokhary) |
| Chief Justice |
Permanent Judge |
Permanent Judge |
Representation:
Applicant, Madam Shih Mei Chin, in person
Mr Kenneth W H Ng (instructed by M/s Baker & McKenzie) for Respondent
|