CACV 36, 45 & 84/99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 36, 45 & 84 OF 1999
(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 348 OF 1996)
Coram: Hon Liu, JA, Leong, JA & Keith, J in Court
Date of Hearing: 4 May 1999
Date of Judgment: 4 May 1999
J U D G M E N T
1. Three separate decisions were made. Mr Chim, the applicant, feels aggrieved and he has, with care and brevity, stated his grounds.We need not call upon counsel for the other side. These applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are groundedon the applicant’s grievances against rulings made for case management and other interim measures.
2. The decisions of the judge and those of this court are not controversies in issue between the parties which would be finally resolvedwhichever way the decision should go. The contentions before us would not bring about final decisions or judgments within the meaningof s. 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
3. There are also no points of great general or public importance which would fall to be decided under s. 22(1)(b) of the same Ordinance for granting leave.
4. There are, we see, no other grounds “otherwise” which would be caught by what is known as entitlement or reasons otherwise sufficientfor granting leave under s. 22(1)(b).
5. None of the three applications of Mr Chim involves matters that are within s. 22. The applications are all refused.
(Submission on costs)
6. Mr Chim’s anxiety is noted and in the circumstances, the applications are dismissed with costs.
Mr Philip Heslop, QC inst’d by M/S Herbert Smith for Petitioner (1st Respondent).
2nd Respondent (Appellant) Chim Pui Chung in person.