THE ALMERINDA

CACV 868/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAJ 222/94)

_______________________

___________________

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 a judgment of this Court, differently constituted, handed down on 13 March 2001. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts of the case because they are contained in the judgment of this Court of that date. It might be mentioned, however, as is obvious, that this is an interlocutory matter.

2. The application is put on the footing that it is a matter of great general or public importance that the questions sought to be argued should be decided by the highest court. In my view, that has not been established as far as this application is concerned.

3. Hypothetical situations have been raised by counsel Mr Smith, SC, on behalf of the proposed appellants who are the interveners. But the points which are raised have some elements, one might say, of pleading points. The point involved in the questions as framed, turns on the construction of the Hague-Visby Rules. In so far as the decision of this Court is concerned, if it is wrong, this Court, as demonstrated by Mr Reyes, SC, on behalf of the plaintiff/respondents, seems to be in international good company.

4. In my view, it would be wrong to give leave in this case. If the point still arises, it can be taken, if necessary and if thought appropriate, after the trial of the matter. It would only delay matters for this point to go to the Court of Final Appeal at this stage. We have been told by counsel that, win or lose on either side, the trial of this matter will go on. Indeed, it would appear that many of the issues are identical in the trial and, in those circumstances, it seems to me that it would be a waste of time, money and energy on the part of the parties to go to the Court of Final Appeal on this point, at this stage.

Beeson J:

5. I agree and I have got nothing to add.