FAMV No. 8 of 2000
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 8 OF 2000 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCMP No. 4917 OF 1999)
Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
Date of Hearing: 5 May 2000
Date of Determination: 5 May 2000
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
Mr Justice Ching PJ :
1. In matrimonial proceedings for ancillary relief the applicant, who appears in person, was ordered to transfer the matrimonial hometo his wife with costs. The unit is a part of the Home Ownership Scheme but by April 1999, it could be sold in the open market. InOctober 1998, when the order was made any transfer required the approval of the Housing Authority and so the order was that he shouldtransfer it to his wife within a month of that approval being given. He has not transferred it to her. The wife, on the other hand,was ordered to transfer to him her interest in shop premises within a month of the transfer of the matrimonial home to her. It wasalso ordered that upon the two transfers the claims of each of them against the other were to be dismissed. In October 1999, theapplicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal out of time. The Court of Appeal refused to extend time. He then appliedto the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and that application was also refused. He now applies tothis Committee for leave.
2. The first ground that he advances before us in this application is that
This is an allegation no doubt designed to bring the applicant within the terms of section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, which confers an appeal as of right from any final judgment where, inter alia, the matter in dispute amounts to or isover the value of $1,000,000 or more. The allegation, however, is a bare one unsupported by any evidence. It is recorded, and foundas a fact, by the judge at First Instance that in October, 1998, the Housing Authority was prepared to purchase back the propertyat $790,000 but charging a premium of about 40% which would have reduced the net price to $474,000. At the time the property wassubject to an outstanding mortgage of about $161,000 which would have further reduced the net value to $313,000.
3. The second ground advanced is that
This is unparticularised and seems to be a complaint against the Legal Aid Department and those lawyers instructed by it. That doesnot, on the face of it, appear to constitute a point of law of great general or public importance. It appears also to be an assertionthat the judge wrongly exercised his discretion. His decision was, on the facts found by him, well within his discretion as foundby the Court of Appeal.
4. While this Committee might be favourably disposed to grant leave to appeal out of time in an appropriate case, the applicant hasshown no merits. The application is for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to extend his time for appealingto that Court. He failed to advance any grounds for an extension of time by that Court and has given this Committee none.
5. This application is hopeless and is dismissed.
Mr Lam Chi Kit, the Applicant, in person
Ms Cheung Kam Yin, the Respondent, absent