After Fung Shui Master Chan lost his bid to Sweetie's estate, some senior counsels suggested that his chance of application for leave to appeal was slim, as there was not much dispute on matters of law. SCs said dispute upon matters of fact usually does not constitute grounds for appeal.
So, what are matters of law? Simply speaking, inside a law court, stuff to be decided by judges, under the ambit of referee, are matters of law. Take common law as an example. Common law comprises statute and case law. When a trial is heard, adherence to the mechanism of statute and case law are vital. Say, what the scope of statute covers, which precedents to be followed etc. Once judges have omitted the related mechanism, the ground for appeal could be emerged. Thus, if a High Court case does not follow precedents established in Court of Appeal, the rule of precedent is violated and so appeal would likely be accepted.
On the contrary, matters of fact are to be considered by jury. If jury is not required, like in most civil cases, judges would step into jury's shoes but the effect should be no difference. Matters of fact are related to decision making. Once all those stringent requirements have been passed for a piece of evidence to be admitted, jury or judge could vote, base on the evidence placed on the table. For example, jury would be asked by the judge, "according to the admitted evidence, you think, or think not, A is responsible for the murder charge upon B?".
From our everyday experience, jury could make some ridiculous decisions. However, no matter how outrageous or naive it is, the verdict could not be overturned. As jury should be the representatives of that society. Decisions made by the jury are virtually the decisions made by that society. It is the essence of democratic societies.
As such, Chan may have to accept the truth that, he could only be ended up as a billionaire, rather than a multi-billionaire.
