惠陽市新墟合興製衣廠 v. ELBEX VIDEO (HONG KONG) LTD

HCA 1950/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1950 OF 2012
________________________

BETWEEN

惠陽市新墟合興製衣廠 Plaintiff
and
ELBEX VIDEO (HONG KONG) LIMITED Defendant
_______________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 September 2015
Date of Decision: 17 September 2015

______________

DECISION
______________

1. This is the defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of this court dated 23 June 2015 (“Decision”). A draft Notice of Appeal (“Notice”) has been attached to the Summons in question.

2. The applicable legal principles are well-established, namely :

(a) No leave shall be granted unless (i) the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or (ii) there is some reason inthe interest of justice why the appeal should be heard (s 14AA (a) and (b) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4);

(b) The prospect of success must be reasonable, ie, more than fanciful but without having to be probable (SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125).

3. The grounds advanced in the Notice are quite difficult to understand. With respect, I agree with Mr Lai, who appears for the plaintiff,that it has not been demonstrated why there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal. In particular, it has notbeen shown why any part of the reasoning in the Decision is flawed. The central issue determined in the Decision was the jurisdictionalbasis of the trial before Master Lo. I am not at all satisfied that, apart from O 36, r 1, there was an alternative basis for thesame.

4. In respect of the interest of justice limb under s 14AA(b), the defendant’s case is nothing more than a bare assertion.

5. In the premises, this application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

(Anthony Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Adrian Lai, instructed by Chak & Associates, for the plaintiff

Mr Tommy Lo, instructed by Chan, Lau & Wai, for the defendant