Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Chan Siu Lun v Hui Cho Yee And Another

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date21 December 1998
Year1998
Judgement NumberFAMV21/1998
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings (Civil)
CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
FAMV000021/1998 CHAN SIU LUN v. HUI CHO YEE AND ANOTHER

FAMV000021/1998

FAMV No. 21 of 1998

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 21 OF 1998 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

FROM CACV No. 124 OF 1998)

_____________________

Between:
CHAN SIU LUN Applicant
AND
HUI CHO YEE

LEE SHING KEUNG

 1st Respondent

2nd Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ

Date of Hearing: 21 December 1998

Date of Determination: 21 December 1998

______________________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________________

Mr Justice Ching PJ :

1. The applicant was crossing a road when he was involved in an accident with a motor vehicle whose owner and driver be sued for negligence. In the Court of First Instance he successfully obtained judgment subject to 50% liability and was awarded damages and costs. He appealed to the Court of Appeal on the question of contributory negligence and on quantum where he was successful on the latter to a partial extent but where he was denied his costs. He now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on contributory negligence, quantum and costs in the Court of Appeal.

2. He put forward no less than 10 grounds to us, two of them numbered 2, and has added a supplementary one. It is enough to say that the vast majority of them are based upon matters of fact which were extensively reviewed by the Judge of First Instance and by the Court of Appeal. Another is against a finding by the Court of Appeal that he was not entitled to rely upon the contents of a publication by an American Association as to psychiatric damage which he claims to have suffered. Then he asserts that both the Judge at First Instance and the Court of Appeal were wrong to have accepted the medical evidence put forward by the Defendants and therefore were wrong in coming to the decisions to which they came on quantum. Finally he wishes to appeal against the refusal of the Court of Appeal to allow him his costs on the appeal.

3. The applicant has no appeal as of right. He puts forward a claim running into millions of dollars in unliquidated damages. It is unnecessary to repeat here what was said in Cheng Lai Kwan vs. Nan...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT