Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consolidation of appeals

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWOK YIU CHEONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWOK YIU CHEONG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC46/2017

The Appeal Committee refused the applicants' summonses because, despite available power to hear related appeals together, the circumstances did not make it just and convenient: the appeals arose from distinct factual incidents, leave to appeal in these cases was not granted, the Wong Chi Fung appeal was ready to be heard on a fixed date and would be prejudiced by vacatur, and overlapping representation removed any material risk of prejudice to the applicants here; accordingly consolidation and early fixation were refused.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM LONG YIN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAM LONG YIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC44/2017

The summonses were dismissed because, although the Court has power to hear related appeals together, the present cases involve distinct facts and are not sufficiently congruent with the already-ready Wong Chi Fung appeals; leave to appeal has not been granted in the present matters; the Wong Chi Fung appeals are ready for hearing on 16 January 2018 and would be prejudiced by adjournment; practical impossibility of preparing records in time and lack of necessity or convenience weigh against consolidation or early listing.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG WING LAI

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG WING LAI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC52/2017

The Appeal Committee refused the applicants' summonses to direct early fixing or consolidation with the Wong Chi Fung appeals because the appeals arise from distinct factual incidents, leave to appeal has not been granted in these cases, the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready to be heard on 16 January 2018 and consolidation would have required vacating a ready hearing; overlapping representation removed material prejudice, and overall it was not just and convenient to order consolidation or early fixing.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC51/2017

The Appeal Committee dismissed the applicants' summonses because, although the Court has power to hear different appeals together where just and convenient, the present cases arise from distinct facts, leave to appeal had not been granted in the present cases, the Wong Chi Fung appeal was ready to be heard on the fixed date and would be impermissibly delayed by consolidation, and there was no material prejudice to applicants from separate hearings; practical considerations therefore made consolidation and early fixation unjust and inconvenient.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU KWOK LEUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAU KWOK LEUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC43/2017

The Appeal Committee dismissed the summonses because, although the Court has power to hear different appeals together where just and convenient, the present cases involve distinct factual matrices, leave to appeal in these cases had not yet been granted, the overlapping legal issues did not outweigh practical considerations, and consolidation would unfairly require vacating an appeal (Wong Chi Fung) that was ready to be heard on the fixed date; therefore it was not just and convenient to order consolidation or early fixing.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIM MAN WA

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YIM MAN WA
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC54/2017

Although the Court has the power to hear related appeals together where just and convenient, the Appeal Committee refused consolidation and early fixing because the appeals arise from distinct factual matrices, leave had not been granted in these cases, the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready for hearing on a fixed date and consolidation would unreasonably require vacating a ready hearing; overlapping representation removed any material risk of prejudice, so the summonses seeking consolidation and an early hearing were dismissed.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU WAI CHUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU WAI CHUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC53/2017

The Appeal Committee refused the applicants' summonses because consolidation was not just and convenient: the separate appeals raise different facts, leave to appeal has not been granted for these applicants, the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready to be heard on 16 January 2018 and consolidation would have required vacating that ready hearing, and overlapping legal representation removed material risk of prejudice to the applicants.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK SHAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK SHAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC55/2017

Although the Court has the power to hear separate appeals together where just and convenient, the Appeal Committee refused the applicants' directions because the appeals arise from distinct facts, leave to appeal in these cases had not been granted, the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready for hearing on 16 January 2018 and would be unacceptably delayed by consolidation, and there was no demonstrated necessity or prejudice to justify vacating an already ready hearing.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG HIU YEUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEUNG HIU YEUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC50/2017

Although the Court possesses the power to hear related appeals together, the Appeal Committee refused the applicants' summonses because the appeals arose from distinct facts, leave to appeal had not been granted in the present cases, the Wong Chi Fung appeal was ready to be heard on the fixed date and would be unfairly vacated, and there was no material risk of prejudice given overlapping representation; on balance it was not just or convenient to consolidate or accelerate the hearings.
20 Dec 2017

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG KAN YUEN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG KAN YUEN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC47/2017

Although the Court may consolidate separate appeals that raise common questions of law, consolidation is discretionary and requires consideration of factual distinctness, whether leave has been granted, preparedness for hearing and prejudice to parties; because the Wong Chi Fung appeals were ready for hearing, the present applications had not yet secured leave, the cases involved distinct facts, and consolidation would prejudice the ready appeal, the summonses seeking early fixation and consolidation were refused.