IU PO CHEUNG v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR CENSUS AND STATISTICS AND ANOTHER

CACV 87/2013

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1120 OF 2012)

________________________

________________________

_______________________

JUDGMENT
_______________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 10 September 2015, we handed down our judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal from the order of Anthony Chan J. By that order, the judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal from an order of Master J Wong on 26 February 2013 striking out his statement of claim and dismissing the action. The action was the third action in which the Plaintiff pursued his claims against his former department head, the Commissioner for Census and Statistics.

2.  The matter has a long litigation history.  We summarized the three sets of legal proceedings commenced by the Plaintiff in respect of his dispute with the Commissioner for Census and Statistics since 2004 at paragraphs 1 to 15 of our judgment.

3.  The Plaintiff applied by a Motion of 5 October 2015 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 10 September 2015.

4.  Submissions were filed by the parties on the Motion according to the directions give by the Registrar of Civil Appeal on 6 October 2015 and Lam VP on 15 October 2015.  The Motion is opposed by Mr Ko, acting for the Defendants.

5.  Under section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 [“the Ordinance”], this court may only grant leave when the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The Plaintiff did not formulate any question of great general or public importance in his Motion or the supporting documents he filed for the purpose of this application.  Nor can we see any such question arising in the proposed appeal.  We have already explained in our judgment why his claims of fraud and perjury had no basis.  A repetition of his submissions previously canvassed cannot give rise to any question which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  

7.  For these reasons, we are not satisfied that this is a case coming within Section 22(1) of the Ordinance.  We dismiss the Motion and order the Plaintiff to pay the costs of the Defendants.  Based on the Statement of Costs submitted by Mr Ko, we fix the costs of the Defendants at $11,792.