|
HCMP 1453/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1453 OF 2006
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ 2837/2005)
______________________
BETWEEN
| |
Royal Skandia Life Assurance Limited |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
Sparkle Consultants (Hong Kong) Limited |
1st Defendant |
| |
Tong Ying Yung, James |
2nd Defendant |
| |
Wong Kun Cheong |
3rd Defendant |
______________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA and Yeung JA in Court
Date of Hearing : 20 December 2006
Date of Decision : 20 December 2006
Date of Reasons for Decision : 22 December 2006
____________________________
REASONS FOR DECISION
____________________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving judgment of the court) :
1. The 3rd defendant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 25 September 2006. We dismissed the application and we now give our reasons.
2. Our judgment was to refuse leave to the 3rd defendant to appeal against the decision of H H Judge Chow who had refused his application to stay the plaintiff’s action against him.
3. Leave to appeal is required for appeals from the District Court to the Court of Appeal. It has been clearly established by the Court of Final Appeal in HL v. MTC and LHN [2004] 3 HKLRD 241 that where leave to appeal is refused, there is no appeal against that decision. This case comes within this principle and this means there will be no appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In any event, none of the conditions set out in section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance is fulfilled.
4. Accordingly the application was dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Wally Yeung)
Justice of Appeal |
3rd Defendant, in person, present.
|