LAM CHI KIT v. CHEUNG KAM YIN

FAMV000008/2000

FAMV No. 8 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 8 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM HCMP No. 4917 OF 1999)

_____________________

_____________________

__________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

__________________________

Mr Justice Ching PJ :

1. In matrimonial proceedings for ancillary relief the applicant, who appears in person, was ordered to transfer the matrimonial home to his wife with costs. The unit is a part of the Home Ownership Scheme but by April 1999, it could be sold in the open market. In October 1998, when the order was made any transfer required the approval of the Housing Authority and so the order was that he should transfer it to his wife within a month of that approval being given. He has not transferred it to her. The wife, on the other hand, was ordered to transfer to him her interest in shop premises within a month of the transfer of the matrimonial home to her. It was also ordered that upon the two transfers the claims of each of them against the other were to be dismissed. In October 1999, the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time. The Court of Appeal refused to extend time. He then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and that application was also refused. He now applies to this Committee for leave.

2. The first ground that he advances before us in this application is that

This is an allegation no doubt designed to bring the applicant within the terms of section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, which confers an appeal as of right from any final judgment where, inter alia, the matter in dispute amounts to or is over the value of $1,000,000 or more. The allegation, however, is a bare one unsupported by any evidence. It is recorded, and found as a fact, by the judge at First Instance that in October, 1998, the Housing Authority was prepared to purchase back the property at $790,000 but charging a premium of about 40% which would have reduced the net price to $474,000. At the time the property was subject to an outstanding mortgage of about $161,000 which would have further reduced the net value to $313,000.

3. The second ground advanced is that

This is unparticularised and seems to be a complaint against the Legal Aid Department and those lawyers instructed by it. That does not, on the face of it, appear to constitute a point of law of great general or public importance. It appears also to be an assertion that the judge wrongly exercised his discretion. His decision was, on the facts found by him, well within his discretion as found by the Court of Appeal.

4. While this Committee might be favourably disposed to grant leave to appeal out of time in an appropriate case, the applicant has shown no merits. The application is for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to extend his time for appealing to that Court. He failed to advance any grounds for an extension of time by that Court and has given this Committee none.

5. This application is hopeless and is dismissed.

Representation: