HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)1998

MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV103/1997MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV206/2002MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV433/2000MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV7/1997MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV85/1998MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV89/1998MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • CACV90/1998MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • FAMC2/1997HKSAR v. MUI PO CHU
  • FAMV18/2000MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • HCA11507/1997MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • HCA1427/2001MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH
  • HCMA380/1997R. v. MUI PO CHU
  • LDPD2367/2001昌興富有限公司(PERFECT CYPRESS LTD)v. 梅寶珠 (MUI PO CHU)
33853-EN-1998-12-11

MUI PO CHU v. MOI OAK WAH

HTML content

FAMV000020/1998

FAMV No. 20 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 20 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV Nos. 103 OF 1997, CACV 85 OF 1998,
CACV 89 OF 1998 and CACV 90 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
MUI PO CHUApplicant
AND
MOI OAK WAHRespondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Ching, PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary, PJ

Date of Hearing: 11 December 1998

Date of Determination: 11 December 1998

___________________________

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 applicant is the respondent's daughter. The respondent is the administrator of the estate of his late wife, the applicant's mother. The litigation between the applicant and her father, the respondent has arisen out of the administration of that estate. The litigation has been protracted with many applications and appeals by the applicant.

3. Here, the applicant is seeking leave to appeal against judgments of the Court of Appeal given on 12 June 1997 in CACV No 103 of 1997 and on 26 June 1998 in CACV Nos 85, 89 and 90 of 1998. The background to these appeals are fully set out in the judgments of the Court of Appeal and need not be repeated here.

4. In our view, we do not have before us materials which satisfy us that the applicant has brought herself within the statutory provisions for leave to appeal to be granted. Accordingly, we dismiss her application for leave.

( Andrew Li )( Charles Ching )( Kemal Bokhary )
Chief JusticePermanent JudgePermanent Judge

Representation:

Applicant Mui Po Chu in person

Respondent Moi Oak Wah in person