FAMV No. 5 of 1999
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 5 OF 1999 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV No. 232 OF 1998)
Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ
Date of Hearing: 3 June 1999
Date of Determination: 3 June 1999
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
Chief Justice Li:
1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.
2. The plaintiff (the applicant) and the defendant (the respondent) were partners. The dispute between them arises out of their partnership.The matter was tried in the District Court. Both parties were unrepresented. The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff on theclaim in the sum of $7,295.67 and for the defendant on the counterclaim in the sum of $5,020.65. This results in the net sum of $2,275.02in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant tried to pay. But the plaintiff refused payment. The trial judge also ordered the defendantto deliver an inventory of machinery parts to the plaintiff and to hand over the parts to the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal. Both parties were again unrepresented. In dismissing the appeal on 2 February 1999,that Court said that it cannot interfere with the judgment of the trial judge who saw and heard the parties. The plaintiff’s applicationto the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed on 30 March 1999.
4. The plaintiff has applied to us for leave. In his grounds he alleges that the defendant perjured himself and lied. Both he and thedefendant are again unrepresented.
5. As was rightly held by the Court of Appeal, the matter in dispute amounts to or is of the value of much less than $1 million. Sothe matter is governed by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, which provides:
6. The trial turned mainly on the credibility of the parties. In our opinion, there is no question involved which is of any generalor public importance let alone one of great general or public importance. And there is no reason why the matter ought “otherwise”to be submitted to the Court.
7. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave. The parties being unrepresented, we make no order as to costs.
Mr Shum Man Shi, applicant in person
Mr Tsui Ming Kwan, respondent in person