WINNERS’ WORKSHOP PRODUCTION CO LTD v. OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD

HCMP 2562/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2562 OF 2009

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 4413 OF 2006)

-----------------------

D E C I S I O N

-----------------------

Hon Rogers VP:

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to this Court from a judgment of Her Honour Judge Mimmie Chan given on 2 October 2009. The judge herself, quite correctly, refused leave to appeal on 27 November 2009. The proposed grounds of appeal are that the judge failed to deal with this, that and the other point.

2.  Let me make quite clear, it is not necessary for a judge to deal with every point that is raised in a case. What is important is that the judge comes to a clear conclusion and gives reasons for coming to that conclusion. The judge is not bound to deal with everything that is raised in cross-examination.

3.  The judge came to the conclusion in this case that there had been agreement between the parties that the remaining balance of $400,000 would not be payable because the Plaintiff complained that there were defects in the delivery and so forth of the particular items in question. That is the end of the matter. It is not necessary for the judge then to go into whether or not the Plaintiff was right in its complaints. The fact is that it raised the complaints and if the judge is satisfied there was an agreement between the parties on the basis of the complaints which have been raised, that is it.

4.  If the judge were to wade into whether the complaints were justified and whether the machines were working and whether they could perform as it had been said they could and what was said - she would have done the wrong thing. That was not her job. Her job was exactly what she did and, in 13 pages, she expressed it and that is the end of the matter.

5.  I see absolutely no basis for appealing in this case. All I can say is that there was clearly a procedural error that this case has been put before two judges to decide whether there should be leave to appeal. The matter should have been disposed of on paper.

Hon Le Pichon JA:

6.  I agree.