QY v. YY
The application for extension of time was dismissed without prejudice because the applicant had not applied to the judge below and failed to provide good justification for bypassing the lower court; the Court of Appeal will not exercise its discretion to extend time in those circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- QY v. YY
- Parties
- Applicant: QY
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 16 February 2015
- Case Number
- HCMP99/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal on Intended Appeal From Family Court) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time
- Outcome
- Dismissed without prejudice
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Procedural Compliance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
QY
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal (court of Appeal on Intended Appeal From Family Court) / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal should entertain an application for extension of time for leave to appeal when no application was made to the lower court
- 2 Whether the Family Court (as part of the District Court) has jurisdiction to extend time for leave to appeal and the effect of that on procedural route
- 3 Whether the applicant provided good justification for bypassing the lower court
Ratio Decidendi
The application for extension of time was dismissed without prejudice because the applicant had not applied to the judge below and failed to provide good justification for bypassing the lower court; the Court of Appeal will not exercise its discretion to extend time in those circumstances.
Court Disposition
Dismissed without prejudice
Orders
- Application for extension of time dismissed without prejudice to the applicant's application (if so advised) to the court below for leave
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCMP 99/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 99 OF 2015 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 5263 of 2012) BETWEEN QY Applicant Respondent Before : Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court Date of Written Submissions : 26 January 2015 Date of Judgment : 16 February 2015 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): This is an application for extension of time for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Ivan Wong of the Family Court. The applicant has not made any application to the judge below for leave. There is no explanation why this was not done. As explained in Kiddie China Ltd v Etech Fire Ltd HCMP 1673 of 2014, 16 September 2014, unlike the position in the High Court, the District Court has power to extend time for leave to appeal. The Family Court is part of the District Court. According to the approach set out in that case, Singh Arjun v Secretary for Justice [2014] 2 HKLRD 678 and Jenho Development Ltd v Tse Tung Hoi HCMP 277 of 2013, 25 March 2013, this court will not entertain an application of this sort when an application has not been made to the court below in the absence of good justification as we do not have the benefit of the views of the lower court on extension of time and the merits of the intended grounds of appeal. This is particularly so when, as in the present case, the complaint was about the lack of opportunity to deal with an important aspect of the case at hearing below. We therefore dismiss the application without prejudice to the applicant s application (if so advised) to the court below for leave. (M H Lam) Vice President (Aarif Barma) MACROBUTTON nomacro Justice of Appeal Written submissions by Mr George Chu, instructed by Damien Shea & Co, for the applicant No written submissions by Y.S. Lau & Partners, for the respondent PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V xne[e[TMeFT? hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ gd$# 9!AB gd$# gdT oaR@ hiS> hT2 hT2 hiS> gd$# gd$# gdOb re^K9 hT2 hT2 gd$# gd$# gd$# gdXc gdT ugYK= hoHQ h@Gu hoHQ hoHQ OkbJE@E hoHQ hoHQ gdqi_ gdK(M hK(M hK(M hK(M hkLq h UG mYHY7Y hK(M hK(M hK(M rlxlrlx hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ hoHQ :pt~ [Content_Types].xml Iw}, $yi} _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml w toc'v )I`n 3Vq%'#q x}r :\TZaG I u3 L+M2 e\O* $*c? )6-r IqbJ#x ,AGm T[XF64 E)`# R>QD =(K& =al- 4vfa 0%M0 theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> H; < VJxN Voo$ lJnsw ManWah Lam Normal.dotm Judiciary Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong Title Source Erica <b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{AF559716-D627-40DF-BD18-80DF5F0343E7}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8