23 Nov 2010
Leave to appeal was refused because the claim was unliquidated and therefore not appealable as of right under section 22(1)(a), and the applicant failed to identify any question of great, general or public importance to justify leave under section 22(1)(b).
5 Jun 2008
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's judgment was interlocutory rather than final; the plaintiff's claim sought unliquidated damages so it did not satisfy s22(1)(a)'s liquidated sum threshold; no question of great general or public importance was demonstrated under s22(1)(b); sections 31 and 32 (criminal appeals) were inapplicable; costs were ordered to follow the event and fixed as a gross sum of HK$30,000.
6 Nov 2007
The court awarded interest at 1% above the HSBC prime rate from 22 April 2003 to 13 July 2007 and at judgment rate thereafter until payment; the defendants' application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under s22(1)(b) Cap.484 was dismissed because the grounds did not raise matters of great general or public importance and no exceptional circumstances existed, the disputed points being primarily contract-specific constructions and fact-dependent.
9 Mar 2007
Leave to appeal was refused: the claims were for unliquidated damages and therefore outside s22(1)(a); the attempted equitable rescission failed and could not be granted so it did not bring the matter within s22(1)(a) or the property threshold; issues under s22(1)(b) involved established principles not of great or public importance; delay and adverse findings did not justify leave under the residual provision.
17 Mar 2006
The application for leave was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's judgment was interlocutory under the applications test and the claim comprised unliquidated damages which do not satisfy the s22(1)(a) $1,000,000 threshold; no properly framed s22(1)(b) question was presented and the court refused to grant an extension or adjournment to allow one to be formulated.
8 Feb 2005
The application for leave was dismissed because damages claimed were unliquidated and do not satisfy section 22(1)(a), and there was insufficient merit or probability to justify exercise of the residual discretion under section 22(1)(b); consequently leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and an order nisi for costs was made in favour of the applicant.
15 Jun 2004
Leave to appeal was refused because the assessed unliquidated damages cannot be treated as the 'matter in dispute' for the s22(1)(a) automatic right of appeal; there was no basis to exercise the s22(1)(b) discretion (no utmost probability that damages would exceed the statutory threshold and no point of great general or public importance); the Court of Appeal's reversal on the question of repudiation was open on the evidence, and therefore leave is refused with costs.
28 Apr 2004
The court held that the Labour Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear monetary claims falling within its Schedule including claims for unliquidated damages that are quantified in practice; however, on the facts the appellant's pleaded conduct did not objectively amount to conduct calculated to destroy or seriously damage the mutual trust and confidence and the claim for $77,070 lacked merit, so the appeal was dismissed.
19 Mar 2004
Leave to appeal was refused because the dispute concerned unliquidated damages which do not confer an automatic right of appeal under section 22(1)(a) and, on the merits, the Court of Appeal had reversed the trial finding of repudiation and acceptance so the appeal lacked sufficient merit to justify leave.
12 Jun 2003
Leave to appeal was refused because (1) s22(1)(a) does not apply to awards of unliquidated damages even if the award exceeds $1,000,000, and (2) the matters advanced under s22(1)(b) did not raise points of great general or public importance; additionally the 1st Defendant had not been given a fair opportunity to address the factual basis of alleged negligence.