MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the question as framed was not the issue on the appeal, the appeal did not raise a matter of great general or public importance, the Judge applied the correct test under RHC O.24 rr.10-13 and there was no basis to interfere with his discretion; interlocutory appeals to the Court of Final Appeal are exceptional and the plaintiff could not show reasonable arguability for leave under s.22(1)(b).

Citation
MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI
Parties
Plaintiff (applicant): Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (In Liquidation); Defendant (respondent): Olivia Lee Sin Mei
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Case Number
HCMP2192/2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Proceedings (interlocutory Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S.22(1)(b) Cap.484
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Interlocutory Appeal, Insurance Policy Disclosure, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Company Law Insolvency Evidence Appellate Law Production of Documents Interlocutory Appeal Insurance Policy Disclosure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Limited (In Liquidation)

Plaintiff (applicant)

Olivia Lee Sin Mei

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Proceedings (interlocutory Appeal) / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal Under S.22(1)(b) Cap.484

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural fairness requires production of a non-privileged document relied upon in an affidavit supporting a contested application
  2. 2 Whether the Judge applied the correct test under RHC O.24 rr.10-11 and r.13 when refusing production of the defendant's indemnity insurance policy
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is reasonably arguable for the purposes of leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s.22(1)(b) Cap.484

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the question as framed was not the issue on the appeal, the appeal did not raise a matter of great general or public importance, the Judge applied the correct test under RHC O.24 rr.10-13 and there was no basis to interfere with his discretion; interlocutory appeals to the Court of Final Appeal are exceptional and the plaintiff could not show reasonable arguability for leave under s.22(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused

Orders

  • Notice of motion dated 24 May 2013 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the defendant