23 Feb 2022
HKSAR v. CHOW HEUNG WING, STEPHEN
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 313
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC5/2018
[2022] HKCA 313
Hong Kong Case Law
Certificate under court of final appeal ordinance
25 Jul 2014
HKSAR v. LAM YING YU
- Citation
- HKSAR v. LAM YING YU
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC320/2012
On the facts there was no new intervening act breaking the causal link; the applicant's dangerous driving placed the taxi driver in danger and was more than de minimis in causing the death, so settled causation law applied and no certificate was warranted because no new point of law of great and general importance arose.
13 Jun 2014
HKSAR v. WONG TAK KEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WONG TAK KEUNG
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC220/2011
The court refused certification because the appeal raised primarily fact-specific issues about whether the applicant joined a conspiracy that originated and was directed from Hong Kong and whether his conduct in seeking to recover lost drugs rendered him a party to that conspiracy; jurisdiction was properly found because a substantial measure of the conspiracy's activities occurred in Hong Kong and therefore the court could try the offence in Hong Kong.
22 Jul 2011
HKSAR v. MA HO FAI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MA HO FAI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA30/2011
The court refused the certificate because the alleged legal question rested on a factual premise contrary to the judge's findings (that no formal identification parade was required on the facts), and therefore the question was not a point of law involved in the decision and not a point of law of great and general importance.
9 May 2008
HKSAR v. WONG KWOK WANG, WARREN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. WONG KWOK WANG, WARREN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC45/2005
The court refused the s.32 certificate and dismissed the application because the questions posed did not satisfy the statutory threshold of being questions of law of great and general importance warranting certification for appeal.
17 Oct 2007
HKSAR v. YEUNG HON KEUNG LARRY
- Citation
- HKSAR v. YEUNG HON KEUNG LARRY
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC233/2006
The court held that the matters advanced did not constitute questions of law of great and general importance under s32(2) and were largely factual disputes or established principles; accordingly no certificate was justified and the application was dismissed.
19 Dec 2006
HKSAR v. HAU KING YEUNG
- Citation
- HKSAR v. HAU KING YEUNG
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC375/2005
The application for a certificate was dismissed because the questions identified presupposed inordinate delay (prejudice to a fair trial) and are inherently case-sensitive; they are not of the great and general importance required for a s.32(2) certificate and thus a certificate was inappropriate.
22 Dec 2005
HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH
- Citation
- HKSAR v. YEUNG MOK YEH
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC483/2004
After investigation of representations, the Court was satisfied the solicitors were aware of time limits, had raised the out‑of‑time issue with counsel and were entitled to rely on counsel's assurance to seek an extension; the failure to make the application was an omission attributable to counsel, not the solicitors, and the implicit criticism of the solicitors in the earlier judgment is withdrawn.
22 Dec 2005
HKSAR v. KWAN WING KEI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. KWAN WING KEI
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC57/2005
The court found on investigation that the solicitors were aware of the time limits, had raised the issue with counsel, and were entitled to rely on counsel's assurance to apply for an extension; therefore the omission to apply for an extension was counsel's error and the previous criticism of the solicitors is withdrawn.
17 May 2002
HKSAR v. SIN LAW YUK LIN, AGNES AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HKSAR v. SIN LAW YUK LIN, AGNES AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC17/2001
The court refused the certificate because the question as posed was inappropriate and abstract — the central issue was whether, in the factual and contextual setting of CSR 852(5), the applicants had a financial interest in the property (the scheme was found to be a sham) — and because the certificate application was out of time without good reason.