CITIBANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SHUM YUET MEI

HCMP 1832/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1832 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 5003 and DCCJ 5004 OF 2004)

________________

DCCJ 5003/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5003 OF 2004

_________________

BETWEEN

_________________

DCCJ 5004/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5004 OF 2004

________________ 

BETWEEN

________________

______________________

 Reasons For Judgment

______________________

Hon Yeung JA (giving reasons for judgment of the Court):

1.  On 24 March 2006, we refused to grant leave to the applicants to appeal against the decision of District Court Judge Marlene Ng.

2.  The applicants now seek leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  “There is no appeal against the grant or refusal of leave to appeal by the full court or the Court of Appeal constituted by two justices of appeal. . .” (See para. 59/14/22 Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2006)

4.  In HLF v MTC & LHN (Intervener) (2004) 7 HKCFAR 167 at p 177, the Court of Final Appeal states:

“Subject to a constitutional challenge, no appeal lies to the Court of Final Appeal from a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to that intermediate tribunal..” 

5.  The applicants have not raised any constitutional challenge nor is  there any basis for any such challenge.

6.  Our decision of 24 March 2006 is a final decision and cannot be challenged any further.

7.  The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal must be refused.