建巧投資有限公司 對 韓國正

建巧投資有限公司 對 韓國正

The application for leave was refused because the proposed grounds raise a new issue that was not raised at trial and therefore cannot properly be advanced on appeal; even if considered they would be legally untenable because the doctrine of title by estoppel applies; the proposed grounds do not involve any matter...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCA 312
Parties
Plaintiff: 建巧投資有限公司 (Bestguard Investment Limited); Defendant: 韓國正 (Hon Kwok Ching)
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Case Number
CACV231/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (leave to Appeal)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; defendant's motion dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff on indemnity/compensatory basis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Under S22(1)(b), Title by Estoppel, New Issues on Appeal, Abuse of Process, Costs — Indemnity/compensatory Assessment
Source Language
ch
Appeal Property Trusts Securities and Futures Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Under S22(1)(b) Title by Estoppel New Issues on Appeal +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

建巧投資有限公司 (Bestguard Investment Limited)

Plaintiff

韓國正 (Hon Kwok Ching)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (leave to Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under Cap.484 s22(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the proposed grounds raise questions of general or public importance or other reasons warranting determination by the Court of Final Appeal
  3. 3 Whether the defendant may raise new issues on appeal that were not raised at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the proposed grounds raise a new issue that was not raised at trial and therefore cannot properly be advanced on appeal; even if considered they would be legally untenable because the doctrine of title by estoppel applies; the proposed grounds do not involve any matter of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and there are no other reasons to refer the matter to the Court of Final Appeal. The defendant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process and costs were ordered on a compensatory/indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; defendant's motion dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff on indemnity/compensatory basis

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
  • Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of this application assessed on a compensatory/indemnity basis under summary procedure