LEUNG MOON CHEUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Others

LEUNG MOON CHEUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Others

The review was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the Adjudicator's exercise of discretion was wrong and, critically, the application was out of time under section 27 so the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the review.

Citation
LEUNG MOON CHEUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Others
Parties
Claimant/appellant: LEUNG MOON CHEUNG; 1st Defendant/1st Respondent: ATTORNEY GENERAL; 2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; 3rd Defendant/3rd Respondent: FUNG KIT YAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 March 1997
Case Number
HCSA4/1997
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application to Review Adjudicator's Order Transferring Proceedings to the District Court Under Section 27
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Time Limits for Appeals, Small Claims Tribunal Procedure, Malicious Prosecution (alleged)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Appeal Transfer of Proceedings Jurisdiction Time Limits for Appeals Small Claims Tribunal Procedure Malicious Prosecution (alleged)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEUNG MOON CHEUNG

Claimant/appellant

ATTORNEY GENERAL

1st Defendant/1st Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

2nd Defendant/2nd Respondent

FUNG KIT YAN

3rd Defendant/3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application to Review Adjudicator's Order Transferring Proceedings to the District Court Under Section 27

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Adjudicator misused his discretion in ordering transfer of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the application for review was time‑barred under section 27
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the review given statutory time limits

Ratio Decidendi

The review was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the Adjudicator's exercise of discretion was wrong and, critically, the application was out of time under section 27 so the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the review.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed.