HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)2010

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. TADJUDIN SUNNY

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV12/2015TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • CACV173/2009TADJUDIN SUNNY v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • DCEO4/2009SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
  • HCA322/2008SUNNY TADJUDIN v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
74890-EN-2011-01-20

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. TADJUDIN SUNNY

HTML content

FAMV No. 42 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 42 OF 2010 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 173 OF 2009)

____________________

Between:

 BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONApplicant
 - and -
 TADJUDIN SUNNYRespondent

____________________

Appeal Committee:

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice MortimerNPJ

Date of Hearing: 20 January 2011

Date of Determination: 20 January 2011

_________________________

DETERMINATION

_________________________

 

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1.  The point or points of law in issue are ones which the Court of Appeal considered reasonably arguable. Even a pure point of law is, at least in general, best resolved in the context of a set of facts found at trial. That has always been the judicial thinking. And it is strengthened by recent civil justice reforms. Added to that is a further consideration, which is that the Court of Final Appeal prefers, when deciding a point of law, to have the considered views of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court. So far, the Court of Appeal has not yet determined the point or points in issue. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s.22(1)(b) of the Court’s statute is discretionary. In our view, this case should now proceed to trial rather than to yet another appeal.

2.  Despite the ability with which this leave application has been pressed, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.

[Argument on costs]

3.  With costs.

 

 

(Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge
(Patrick Chan)
Permanent Judge
(Barry Mortimer)
Non-Permanent Judge

 

Mr Adrian Huggins SC (instructed by Messrs Mayer Brown JSM) for the applicant

Mr Russell Coleman SC (instructed by Messrs William K W Leung & Co.) for the respondent