東亞銀行有限公司 對 葉志偉及另二人
The Court granted leave because the plaintiff's claim of HK$1,253,953.01 was an "already quantified sum" exceeding the statutory HK$1,000,000 threshold and the dispute concerned the plaintiff's contractual entitlement to charge compound and default interest (not an amount requiring substantive judicial computation);...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 東亞銀行有限公司 對 葉志偉及另二人
- Parties
- Plaintiff: 東亞銀行有限公司; First Defendant: 葉志偉; Second Defendant: 葉美施; Third Defendant: 京偉(香港)有限公司
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 31 May 2012
- Case Number
- CACV70/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (jurisdictional Question Re: Right to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Court of Appeal: Permission Granted to Defendants to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Subject to Deposit Condition
- Outcome
- Permission granted to defendants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Already Quantified Sum, Compound Interest, Default Interest, Statutory Jurisdictional Monetary Threshold
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
東亞銀行有限公司
Plaintiff
葉志偉
First Defendant
葉美施
Second Defendant
京偉(香港)有限公司
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (jurisdictional Question Re: Right to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal) / Court of Appeal: Permission Granted to Defendants to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Subject to Deposit Condition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim qualifies as an "already quantified sum" exceeding the statutory HK$1,000,000 threshold
- 2 Whether the disputed amount requires substantive court calculation (thus defeating status as an already quantified sum)
- 3 Whether defendants therefore have a right of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave because the plaintiff's claim of HK$1,253,953.01 was an "already quantified sum" exceeding the statutory HK$1,000,000 threshold and the dispute concerned the plaintiff's contractual entitlement to charge compound and default interest (not an amount requiring substantive judicial computation); therefore the defendants had the right to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Court Disposition
Permission granted to defendants to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
Orders
- Defendants granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal in respect of the Court of Appeal judgment dated 17 February 2012.
- Defendants must deposit HK$100,000 with the Court within 30 days as security for appeal costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 70/2011 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 民事上訴 案件編號：民事上訴案件 2011 年第70 號 (原高等法院雜項案件2005年第2766 號) 原告人 東亞銀行有限公司 與 第一被告人 葉志偉 第二被告人 葉美施 第三被告人 京偉(香港)有限公司 審理法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長楊振權 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官朱芬齡 聆訊日期：2012年4月26日 判案書日期：2012年4月26 日 判決理由書日期：2012 年 5 月 31 日 判決理由書 本庭於 2012 年 4 月 26 日給予被告人許可，讓他們就本庭 2012 年 2 月 17 日的判案書向終審法院提出上訴，但條件是被告人必須於 30 天內將 HK$100,000.00 存入法庭作為上訴訟費保證金。 本庭給予上訴許可的原因是被告人具有當然權利向終審法院提出上訴。原告人的申索是一項「經已計算的款額」，該款額超越法定的HK$1,000,000.00下限。本案所爭議的HK$1,253,953.01 並不是一筆經法庭評核所計算出來的損失金額。該筆款項的爭議是涉及原告人根據雙方貸款文件內容去收取複息及愈期利息的權利，法庭是不需要就原告人收取有關複息及愈期利息的金額作出實質的計算。 這情況有別於原告人所引用的 Pearldelta Group v. Huge Winners International Limited and other (FAMV No. 1/2011) 的案例。在該案上訴法庭除了需要就合約條款作出闡釋外，還需要計算出有關的款項。上訴法庭認為若干款項是不能計算出來的。終審法院認為若一項申索的款額需要法庭以這方式來處理的話,那麼有關申索明顯不是一項「經已計算的款額」。 （楊振權） 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 （張澤祐） 高等法院上訴法庭 法官 （朱芬齡） 高等法院上訴法庭 法官 原告人：由唐天燊律師行代轉聘李頌然大律師代表。 第一被告人：無律師代表，親自出席。 第二被告人：無律師代表，親自出席。 第三被告人：無律師代表，由第二被告人代表。Top of Form Bottom of Form