Max Share Ltd And Another v Ng Yat Chi

CourtCourt of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date14 Jan 1998
Citation[1998] 1 HKLRD 237;(1997-1998) 1 HKCFAR 72
Judgement NumberFACV3/1997
SubjectFinal Appeal (Civil)
FACV000003/1997 MAX SHARE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG YAT CHI

FACV No. 3 of 1997

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

FINAL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 1997 (CIVIL)

(ON APPEAL FROM CACV No. 252 OF 1996)

_____________________

Between
MAX SHARE LIMITED 1st Appellant
CHINA RESOURCES (HOLDINGS)
COMPANY LIMITED
2nd Appellant
AND
NG YAT CHI Respondent

_____________________

Coram: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary, P.J. and Mr Justice Nazareth, NPJ

Date of Hearing: 14 January 1998

Date of Judgment: 14 January 1998

_________________________

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

_________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary, P.J.:

1. This is the Appeal Committee's determination.

2. On 16 October 1997 we granted the appellants leave to appeal. They filed their Case on 31 December 1997.

3. Now by a summons dated 6 January 1998 the respondent seeks the setting-aside of the appellants' Case plus consequential relief.

4. Such setting-aside is sought on two grounds. The first is that, so the respondent contends, the appellants' Case fails to deal with issues which we, in our Determination of 16 October 1997 granting leave to appeal, said the parties would have to address. As to this ground, we say no more than that the appellants' Case has no shortcoming in that regard such as would warrant any setting-aside or similar sanction.

5. The second ground is that, so the respondent contends, the appellants' Case fails to comply with rule 27(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules, which provides that:

"The Case shall be signed by the counsel for the party or the party himself."

6. In the present case, the appellants' leading and junior counsel have put their manuscript signatures to the draft Case which they settled. By reason of logistical difficulties, they happened to have put their manuscript signatures to the draft after the Case prepared from it was filed and served. Their printed names appear at the end of the copies of the appellants' Case which have been filed and served.

7. That, the respondent argues, is insufficient to comply with rule 27(2). He argues that rule 27(2) requires that counsel put their manuscript signatures to the copies of the Case filed. We pause to observe that rule 25(1) requires an appellant to file six copies of his Case, while rule 25(2) requires a respondent likewise to...

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