HSIAO, HSIU-YANG v. CHU WAI TING

CACV267/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 5909 OF 1999)

_________________

BETWEEN

HSIAO, HSIU-YANG Plaintiff
and
CHU WAI TING Defendant

_________________

Before : Hon Rogers VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Hearing : 14 June 2005

Date of Judgment : 14 June 2005

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This is an application for an adjournment of an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2. The application for leave to appeal appears to me to be doomed to failure anyway because it is put on the basis of section 22(1)(a)- it seems to me that it cannot possibly come under that for a number of reasons, one of which one can state very simply that thedecision in respect of which an appeal is sought was an interlocutory decision – another of which is that there is no specificliquidated sum in respect of which an appeal can be bought.

3. However, quite apart from that, this application is simply an application now for an adjournment and this court would be very reluctantto adjourn sine die an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4. I note that the ethos in this day and age is to try and proceed cases with proper expedition. This case has dragged on quite longenough as the plaintiff was pointed out in his written submissions, although he is not here today. It is quite wrong to let thiscase go on and on in circumstances which have been adequately set out in the judgments, and particularly that of Sakhrani J. Toallow this application to be adjourned sine die would simply be to heap more trouble onto a case which should have long since ceased to exist.

5. As has been pointed out by Cheung JA during the course of argument, even if the defendant had considered that it might be appropriateto abandon any appeal, the proper course would seem to me to be to continue with the application and if leave were granted and itwas subsequently decided to abandon the appeal, to abandon it then, but not to delay the matter now.

6. So, for all those reasons, this application must be refused.

Hon Cheung JA:

7. I agree.

(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal

The Plaintiff/Respondent, in person (absent)

Mr David Chan, instructed by Messrs Pansy Leung Tang & Chua, for the Defendant/Applicant

Defendant’s application for an adjournment of an application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal to Court of Appeal refused.Please refer to CACV267/2004 dated 14 June 2005