W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD

There was no arguable point of law for the grant of leave to appeal because the learned adjudicator made findings of fact (including admission of leakage and inference of causation) which cannot be challenged on appeal under s28 Cap.338; the matters raised by APL were attacks on factual findings or invited reassessment of evidence rather than points of law, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Citation
W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD
Parties
Claimant: W. M. Industrial (K.C.C.) Limited; Defendant (applicant): Advance Plan Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Case Number
HCSA37/2010
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Causation, Leave to Appeal, Findings of Fact Vs Law, Quantum of Damages, Small Claims Tribunal Procedure
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Property Damage Civil Procedure Causation Leave to Appeal Findings of Fact Vs Law Quantum of Damages +1 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W. M. Industrial (K.C.C.) Limited

Claimant

Advance Plan Limited

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an arguable point of law to grant leave to appeal under s28 of Cap.338
  2. 2 Whether the learned adjudicator was wrong to infer causation between APL's leak and KCC's damage
  3. 3 Whether prior leakage incidents are relevant to liability for the 7 September 2008 incident

Ratio Decidendi

There was no arguable point of law for the grant of leave to appeal because the learned adjudicator made findings of fact (including admission of leakage and inference of causation) which cannot be challenged on appeal under s28 Cap.338; the matters raised by APL were attacks on factual findings or invited reassessment of evidence rather than points of law, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs