|
CACV000434B/2002
CACV 434/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 434 of 2002
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 4724 of 2001)
______________________
|
IN THE MATTER of All That One equal undivided 45th part or share of and in ALL THOSE pieces or parcels of ground registered in the Land Registry as SECTION A OF INLAND LOT NO. 2258 and THE REMAINING PORTION OF INLAND LOT NO. 2258 And of and in the messuages erections and buildings thereon known as BLOCKS "C" AND "D" VICTORIA COURT ("the said Building") TOGETHER WITH the sole and exclusive right and privilege to the use occupation and enjoyment of ALL THAT APARTMENT NO. C14 on the FOURTEENTH FLOOR of the said Building
AND
IN THE MATTER of a Deed of Mortgage dated the 28th day of June 2000 and registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No. 8128764
AND
IN THE MATTER of Order 88 of the Rules of the High Court Cap. 4
|
|
| BETWEEN: |
|
|
|
ABN AMRO BANK NV |
Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
MANHARLAL TRIKAMAS MODY |
1st Defendant |
|
MEENA MANHARLAL MODY |
2nd Defendant |
____________________
Coram: Hon Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court
Date of hearing: 7 July 2004
Date of Judgment: 7 July 2004
________________
JUDGMENT
_________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the judgment of the Court):
1. This is an application by Mrs Meena Manharlal Mody (whom we shall refer to as the Applicant) for leave to appeal to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal against this court's decision given on 22 December 2003. This court's decision was to dismiss the Applicant's appeal from a decision of A. Cheung Dep. J (as he then was) refusing an extension of time to appeal against an order of Master Au-Yeung.
2. The application for extension of time came many many months after the Master's order. As such Cheung Dep. J's decision and this court's decision are interlocutory in nature. Accordingly, we are bound by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. Section 22(1)(b) provides that:
"(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court-
(b) at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, from any other judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court, as the case may be, 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 for decision."
3. The Applicant has submitted that there is a question of general and public importance because according to her affirmation, she has not hitherto come across an undue influence case that also involved a delay in time, and she said that this makes it an unusual case that requires a thorough examination by the Court of Final Appeal.
4. However in our view, a combination of a number of separate issues in a given situation (even if assumed to be unique) does not necessarily translate into a question of general or public importance. We can see no question of general or public importance in this case, nor can we see any other reason why this question should be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
5. Mrs Mody also submitted this morning that there may be many ladies in the same position as she, and that in her culture wives generally obey their husbands, thereby bringing themselves into situations such as that which she has found herself in.
6. In our view, in the first place there is no evidence to support her allegation, but even if there were, that does not translate into a question of general or public importance either. Accordingly, this application must be dismissed.
| (PETER CHEUNG) |
(MARIA YUEN) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Representation:
Ms Gekko Lan, instructed by Messrs Joseph SC Chan & Co, for the Plaintiff
The 2nd Defendant, in person, present
|