RE LABOUR BUILDINGS LTD

CACV 37/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2010

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 721 OF 2009)

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

 

Hon Rogers VP:

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from an order made by this Court on 26 April 2010 that the costs which had been ordered to be paid by the Appellant company should be borne by the solicitor.

2.  The decision of this court is set out very briefly in the judgment that was given that day and it spells out very clearly the basis upon which it was given the facts are summarised in paragraph 7 and 8 of that decision where I said:

“Be that as it may, the simple point in this case is that this appeal was launched.  In my view, it was a hopeless appeal from the start.  The notice of appeal is perfunctory and raises no real ground of appeal at all.  The façade was kept up, right until the hearing commenced, that it was an appeal which would go ahead.  Mr Chan, who is the proprietor of the solicitors’ firm acting on behalf of the Appellant, well knew it was not going ahead and costs could clearly have been saved, even if the appeal were abandoned towards the end.

In my view, these are circumstances which clearly dictate that this appeal should never have come before this Court and, in my view, the Appellant’s solicitors have acted improperly in the conduct of this appeal and should bear the costs of it because, clearly, the Appellant (the Company) is not in a position to pay those costs and I would so order.”

3.  On this application, Mr Chan has sought to introduce new facts and different facts, many of them which conflict with what is in the papers already.  Nevertheless, on this application this Court cannot entertain new facts.  As regards the law, I see no ground upon which this court should say that there is an issue of great general or public importance for this matter to be sent to the Court of Final Appeal.  This is a simple question of the application of Order 62, and the facts relating to this appeal which was pursued until the very last moment, even though costs could have been saved had the parties been informed that the appeal would not go ahead.

4.  In those circumstances, leave to appeal is refused.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

5.  I agree.

Hon Stone J:

6.  I also agree.