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

Law Siu Yin Ada v Lo Hung Kwan

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date11 July 2001
Year2001
Judgement NumberCACV1034/2000
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV001034B/2000 LAW SIU YIN ADA v. LO HUNG KWAN

CACV001034B/2000

CACV 1034/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1034 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO 11 OF 1999)

______________________________________

BETWEEN
LAW SIU YIN ADA (alias LAW SIU YIN, LAW LO SIU YIN, LO SIU YIN, LO HAU CHUN) Plaintiff
AND
LO HUNG KWAN Defendant

______________________________________

Coram: Hon Woo JA and Le Pichon JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 July 2001

Date of Judgment: 11 July 2001

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Le Pichon JA:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant's appeal from Deputy Judge Muttrie's dismissal of her appeal against Master Ho's order to strike out her amended Statement of Claim, pursuant to order 18, rule 19 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court was dismissed by this court. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the deed of settlement should be rescinded on the ground of misrepresentation and/or mutual mistake and/or duress. The plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to a half share in an estate that is worth some $250 million so that if the deed of settlement were set aside, her share would be well in excess of $1 million.

2. The applicant will be entitled as of right to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal only if she can establish that the appeal is a final appeal and the appeal involves a claim amounting to $1 million or more. The first question to be decided is whether the appeal is final or interlocutory. Mr Lo who represents the applicant relied on Egerton v Shirley [1945] KB 107. That case involved an order made by a Master pursuant to Order 14 giving leave to the plaintiff to sign judgment against the defendant, and it was held that it was a final order which 'finally disposes of the rights of the parties'. What we have before us, however, is not an Order 14 application. The applicant's claim was struck out on the ground that it was frivolous or vexatious. It is now settled law that orders dismissing actions - either because they are frivolous and vexatious, or on the ground of disclosure of no reasonable cause of action - have for a very long time been treated as interlocutory. See In re Page [1910] 1 Ch 489 and Hunt v Allied Bakeries Limited [1956] 1WLR 1326 at 1328. Although in the case of In re Page, Buckley L.J. expressed some disquiet and he said this:

"To my mind it would be reasonable to say that that is a final order. But I do not think I am entitled to found myself on that, because there have been many decisions in which orders apparently final have been treated as interlocutory. The Master of the Rolls has referred to one or two of...

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