ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND OTHERS

CACV000250A/1998

CACV 231/98&
CACV 250/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT ACTION NO. A1034 OF 1997)

BETWEEN
UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
(Respondent)
AND
ROE INVESTMENT LIMITED 1st Defendant
(1st Applicant)
KOWLOON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Defendant
(2nd Applicant)

——————-

CACV 250/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HIGH COURT
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 326 OF 1997)

BETWEEN
ROE INVESTMENT LIMITED Plaintiff
(Applicant)
AND
PRINCE GOOD LIMITED 1st Defendant
(1st Respondent)
KO FEI 2nd Defendant
UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 3rd Defendant
(2nd Respondent)

——————-

Coram: Hon Chan, CJHC, Nazareth, V-P & Liu, JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 29 April 1999

Date of Judgment: 29 April 1999

———————-

J U D G M E N T

———————–

Liu, JA:

1. The question that was asked of this Court is one of entitlement to interplead. Interpleader is certainly not a novel topic. The natureof the right to interplead was re-affirmed as early as 1936 by Lord Greene, then sitting in the English Court of Appeal. That aside,the question of interpleader in this case simply arose from unusual dealings of corporations linked to convoluted documentation.

2. The questions set out in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the respective Notices of the Application for Leave to Appeal, that is pages 36and 37 of the Bundle, are not questions of importance, public or general. They are decidedly not questions of great general or publicimportance as envisaged by s. 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. This is a matter which fell within a very short compass. The nature of it defies any elaboration, as Mr Edward Chan, Senior Counsel,has this court politely reminded.

3. For these reasons, the applicants have not been able to show in each case that it is a fit matter for leave to appeal to the Courtof Final Appeal to be granted. This court, therefore, refuses the two applications.

(P Chan) (G P Nazareth) (B Liu)
Chief Judge of
the High Court
Vice-President of the
Court of Appeal of the
High Court
Justice of Appeal of the
Court of Appeal of the
High Court

Representation:

Mr Warren Chan, SC inst’d by M/S Siao, Wen & Leung for Plaintiff (Respondent) in CACV 231/98 and 1st & 3rd Defendants (1st& 2nd Respondents) in CACV 250/98 .

Mr Edward Chan, S.C. leading Mr Horace Wong inst’d by M/S Yu, Tsang & Loong for Defendants (Applicants) in CACV 231/98 and Plaintiff(Applicant) in CACV 250/98.