NGAN TSE LEUNG v. FUNG, WONG, NG & LAM (a firm)

CACV 193/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2006 

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA nO. 132 OF 2006)

_______________________

______________________ 

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

Hon Yeung JA (giving Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 18 July 2006, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against an order for security of costs made by Rogers VP.

2.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the basis that the “matter in dispute amounts to or is worth more than $1 million” and that the “matter is dispute has exhausted all remedies in the High Court of the HKSAR”.

3.  Section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides:

“(1) An appeal shall lie to the Court –

(a) as of right, from any final judgment of the Court of Appeal in any  civil cause or matter, where the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is of the value of $1,000,000 or more, or where the appeal involves, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property or some civil right amounting to or of the value of $1,000,000 or more;

(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:…”

4.  The matter giving rise to the dispute between the parties concerns the sale and purchase of a property and the value of the property may well exceed $1 million. However, the appeal in question only concerns an order for security of costs in the sum of $165,000.

5.  The applicant’s contention that the matter in dispute on the appeal amounts to or is worth more than $1 million is unfounded. Further a security for costs order is interlocutory in nature and not a final judgment. The applicant is not entitled to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal as of right.

6.  The applicant does not state what the question that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Court for decision is, let alone one of great general or public importance. We cannot find any other reason justifying the submission of the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal either.

7.  There is no valid basis upon which we can accede to the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed.