NEW WORLD HARBOURVIEW HOTEL CO LTD AND OTHERS v. ACE INSURANCE LTD AND OTHERS
HTML content
CACV 97/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2010
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 46 OF 2007)
________________________
BETWEEN
| NEW WORLD HARBOURVIEW HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED | 1st Plaintiff | |
| THE DYNASTY CLUB LIMITED | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| ISLAND GYM COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as ISLAND SAUNA COMPANY LIMITED) | 3rd Plaintiff | |
| GRAND HYATT HONG KONG COMPANY LIMITED | 4th Plaintiff | |
| URBAN PARKING LIMITED | 5th Plaintiff | |
| POLYTOWN COMPANY LIMITED | 6th Plaintiff | |
| HONG KONG ISLAND DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED | 7th Plaintiff | |
| NEW WORLD HOTEL COMPANY LIMITED | 8th Plaintiff | |
| HONG KONG NEW WORLD DEPARTMENT STORE COMPANY LIMITED | 9th Plaintiff | |
| KIU LOK SERVICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED | 10th Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| ACE INSURANCE LIMITED | 1st Defendant | |
| AXA GENERAL INSURANCE (HONG KONG) LIMITED | 2nd Defendant | |
| FALCON INSURANCE COMPANY (HONG KONG) LIMITED | 3rd Defendant | |
| LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE LTD. | 4th Defendant | |
| TUGU INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED | 5th Defendant | |
| XL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as XL WINTERTHUR INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED) | 6th Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Stone and Lam JJ in Court
Date of Hearing: 28 January 2011
Date of Judgment: 28 January 2011
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the basis that the matters questions involved are matters of great general or public importance and, secondly, on the “or otherwise” ground.
2. As regards the first point, I do not consider that the matters raised are questions of great general or public importance. They are no doubt of great importance to the litigants, but this is really a special situation, and the questions raised do not fall within the ambit of general or public importance.
3. In any event, in the exercise of discretion, I would say that this matter appeared very clear to this court at the time and it clearly appeared very clear to the judge below. So I would be very reluctant to give leave to appeal in such a situation.
4. Turning to the “or otherwise” ground, as Mr Chua SC has pointed out, it is the practice of this court not to grant leave under the “or otherwise” ground because that is a matter, really, for the Court of Final Appeal to decide whether this is a case which they consider should be heard by them. I would adhere to that in this case, if for no other reason, than I think the matter was clear.
5. I therefore would refuse leave to appeal.
Hon Stone J:
6. I agree with the judgment of the Vice-President.
Hon Lam J:
7. I also agree. Instead of raising questions of great general or public importance, as I see it, the issues raised are rather esoteric, and I therefore agree that leave should be refused.
| (Anthony Rogers) Vice-President | (William Stone) Judge of the Court of First Instance | (M H Lam) Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Mr Chua Guan-Hock SC and Ms Vivian Yeung, instructed by Messrs Wan and Leung, for the 1st to 10th Plaintiffs/Applicants
Mr Charles Manzoni, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, for the 1st to 6th Defendants/Respondents
(I) Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal by the 1st to 10th Plaintiffs granted by the Court of Final Appeal. Please refer to FAMV6/2011 dated 26 August 2011 (II) Please refer to FACV12/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Final Appeal.