李秀英v中国银行(香港)有限公司

李秀英v中国银行(香港)有限公司 A A B B HCMP 1041/2008 C C IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE D D HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL E E MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1041 OF 2008 F F (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC 11418/2004) ____________ G G BETWEEN H H LSW Petitioner I I and J J LMYM Respondent K K (Applicant) L L ____________ M M Before: Hon Tang VP and A Cheung J in Court N N Date of Hearing: 11 November 2008 Date of Judgment: 17 November 2008 O O _______________ P P J U D G M E N T _______________ Q Q R R Hon A Cheung J (giving the judgment of the Court): S S 1. On 7 July 2008, this Court handed down a judgment to deal with the applicant?s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal T T from FCMC 11418/2004. The Court dismissed the application. U U V V - 2 - A A B B 2. On 21 August 2008, this Court handed down a further C judgment to strike out, in the exercise of the Court?s inherent jurisdiction C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the applicant?s appeal in D D CACV 43/2008, and to impose restricted proceedings and restricted E application orders against the applicant (“the restrictive orders”). E F F 3. On 4 September 2008, pursuant to the restrictive orders, Tang G V-P refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply to set aside the further G judgment and the orders made therein. H H I 4. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final I Appeal from these decisions. J J K 5. The facts have been fully set out in our two judgments. We K will not repeat them here. L L M 6. Although many materials have been filed by the applicant, the M grounds of appeal are obscure. N N O 7. But even more importantly, the present application simply O does not fall within s 22(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal P P Ordinance (Cap 484) which governs the grant of leave to appeal. Q Q 8. First, our decision not to give leave to appeal is not a R R „judgment? within the meaning of s 22(1)(a) and (b). No appeal therefore S lies to the Court of Final Appeal: HLF v MTC [2004] 3 HKLRD 241; S 李秀 T 英v中國銀行(香港)有限公司 CACV 5/2008 (23 October 2008). T Likewise, a refusal to grant leave under a restrictive order is not a U U V V A - 3 - A B B „judgment? within the meaning of that section and there can be no appeal C from such refusal to the Court of Final Appeal. C D D 9. Secondly, s 22(1)(a) is inapplicable in any event because we E are not dealing with a final judgment, nor is the value in dispute of E $1,000,000 or more. F F G 10. Nor can we discern any question which, by reason of its G general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the H H Court of Final Appeal for decision (s 22(1)(b)). The subject decisions only I involved applying well-established principles to the facts of the present I case. No question of great general or public importance was engaged. J J K 11. The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final K Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. L L M 12. In order to protect the Court of Appeal from being vexed by M any future applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal N N from the designated judge?s refusals to grant leave under the restrictive O orders, we further order and direct that no such application shall be made O without the prior leave of the designated judge, and for such purposes P P paras 3 to 8 of this Court?s Order dated 21 August 2008 be and are hereby Q extended to cover all such applications before the Court of Appeal for Q leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. R R S S T T U U V V - 4 - A A B B C C D D E (Robert Tang) (Andrew Cheung) E Vice-President Judge of the Court of First Instance F F G The applicant, appearing in person G H H I I J J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V