KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD 對 HO KUI LAI RICHARD

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD 對 HO KUI LAI RICHARD

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied upon were purely fact-specific to the parties and did not raise matters of general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the defendant sought to rely on arguments not previously advanced at trial or on appeal and therefore could not properly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCA 990
Parties
Plaintiff: KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED; Defendant: HO KUI LAI RICHARD
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2023
Case Number
CACV213/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (s22(1)(b) Application)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the notice of motion dated 30 June 2023 dismissed/struck out; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal, Burden of Proof for Adjournment/repayment, Raising New Arguments at Leave Stage, Assessment of Costs
Source Language
ch
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Leave to Appeal to Court of Final Appeal Burden of Proof for Adjournment/repayment Raising New Arguments at Leave Stage Assessment of Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Plaintiff

HO KUI LAI RICHARD

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (s22(1)(b) Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed appeal raises an issue of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap.484)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was denied procedural fairness because the court did not require him to produce evidence of repayment ability
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can advance a new argument at the leave to appeal stage regarding the judge's conduct and the loan amount

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied upon were purely fact-specific to the parties and did not raise matters of general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the defendant sought to rely on arguments not previously advanced at trial or on appeal and therefore could not properly invoke the Court of Final Appeal; moreover the defendant bore the evidential burden to produce credible evidence of repayment, so his complaint that the judge did not request such evidence was misplaced.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; the notice of motion dated 30 June 2023 dismissed/struck out; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused
  • Notice of motion dated 30 June 2023 dismissed