HONG KONG HOUSING SOCIETY v. TANG KAR HUNG

FAMV No. 4 of 2000

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4 OF 2000 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 153 OF 1999)

_____________________

____________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

____________________________

Litton PJ:

1. This is the determination of the Appeal Committee.

2. The background to this application is as follows. The applicant was a director of Hing Lee Construction Co. Ltd. which, at one time, had substantial building contracts with the Hong Kong Housing Society. While works were in progress, sums totalling $21.8m were advanced by the Society to Hing Lee upon guarantees executed by the applicant in the Society's favour. The guarantees provided that if, in the Society's opinion, Hing Lee should be in default of its obligations under the building contracts the applicant would, upon written demand by the Society and without proof of default, satisfy the Society's loss up to the sums advanced: That is, the total of $21.8m. These guarantees were executed in November 1997.

3. In March 1998 the Society determined Hing Lee's employment on account of its default under the contracts. In May 1998 the Society lodged claims against Hing Lee exceeding $300m for loss sustained. Hing Lee went into liquidation and did not satisfy the Society's claims. In August 1998 the Society made demands for payment in terms of the guarantees against the applicant. The applicant failed to pay.

4. By a full and well-reasoned judgment dated 11 May 1999 Findlay J gave summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of the High Court against the applicant for $21.8m together with interest. The applicant's appeal to the Court of Appeal against Findlay J's judgment was unsuccessful. Every conceivable point in the applicant's favour was scrupulously explored in both courts. Being still dissatisfied, the applicant sought leave to appeal to this Court. By a judgment dated 19 January 2000 the Court of Appeal refused leave. That court did so because:

5. The applicant was, on the hearing of the application for leave, represented by counsel.

6. The applicant, now acting in person, seeks to renew his application for leave to appeal.

7. For the reasons so fully set out in the Court of Appeal's judgment of 19 January 2000, which need no repetition here, we dismiss the application, with costs.