|
CACV64/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2004
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1178 OF 1995)
______________________
BETWEEN
| |
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP
(CHINA) LIMITED formerly known as
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
(CHINA) LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
MACVIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES
(INVESTMENT) LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL |
2nd Defendant |
| |
HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
(By Original Action)
_______________________
AND BETWEEN
| |
VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES
(INVESTMENT) LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
CHAN NAI KANG, NATHANAEL |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
HARBOUR FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP
(CHINA) LIMITED formerly known as
SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
(CHINA) LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
| |
HOPETOWN ASSETS LIMITED |
2nd Defendant |
| |
LONGVILLE ASSETS LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
(By Counterclaim)
_______________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP and Le Pichon JA in Court
Date of Hearing: 10 November 2004
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2004
__________________
J U D G M E N T
__________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is not a case in which leave should be given under section 22(1)(a). As has been pointed out, this court is bound by decisions as to whether a judgment is final or interlocutory. The test which is applied is the applications test. On that test the matter in dispute in this case does not come within the meaning of ‘final’.
2. As to the question of discretion, the point as I understand it, put quite simply, is whether it was open to the judge in the court below to dismiss this action for want of prosecution on the basis that there had been a failure to provide security for costs. In my view it was open to him. I do not consider that this is a matter of great or general public importance fit for leave to be given to go to the Court of Final Appeal.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
3. I agree.
| (Anthony Rogers) |
(Doreen Le Pichon) |
| Vice-President |
Justice of Appeal |
Mr Sui See Chun, instructed by Messrs Foo & Li, for the 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs (by Original Action)/Applicants
Mr James Collins, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the 1st to 3rd Defendants (by Original Action)/Respondents
|