|
CACV 122/2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2006
(ON APPEAL FROM LDBM 207 OF 2005)
______________________
BETWEEN
| |
The Incorporated Owners of Swiss Towers |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Chow Yum Wah |
Respondent |
Before : Hon Tang VP, Hon Cheung JA and Hon Yeung JA in Court
Date of Hearing : 11 January 2007
Date of Decision : 11 January 2007
Date of Reasons for Decision : 19 January 2007
______________________
Reasons for Decision
______________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving judgment of the court) :
1. We dismissed the respondent’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 13 October 2006. These are our reasons.
2. The facts of this case are fully set out in the Reasons for Judgment dated 20 October 2006.
3. The respondent obviously failed to fulfill the requirements of section 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
4. First, the subject matter involved was for the sum of $17,500.00.
5. Second, although the respondent raised many arguments in his written submission the only matter that could be said to be remotely related to the issue of great general or public importance was his contention that our judgment might affect the operation of owners corporations in Hong Kong when they contributed money for a public cause.
6. That, however, was not the basis of our decision. The issue involved in the appeal was in respect of an award by the management committee to the respondent as the chairman of the corporation as entertainment expenses. This award was stated to be subject to the approval of the owners in the annual general meeting of the corporation. The owners at the meeting rejected the payment to the respondent. This is an issue which is unique to the case itself. It clearly does not come within the great general or public importance ambit. As stated in our Reasons for Judgment we expressly declined to deal with the issue as to whether the corporations could support activities which concerned the community by way of financial contribution.
7. The respondent had also not demonstrated that leave should be granted on the ‘or otherwise’ ground.
8. Accordingly the respondent’s application was dismissed with costs to the applicant.
(Robert Tang)
Vice-President |
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Wally Yeung)
Justice of Appeal |
Respondent, in person, present
Ms Peony Wong, instructed by Messrs S. H. Leung & Co., for the Applicant
|