Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Court of final appeal ordinance s.22

Legal area

Court

4 May 1999

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/1999

The applications for leave were refused because the challenged rulings were interlocutory and not final under s.22(1)(a), did not raise questions of general or public importance under s.22(1)(b), and no other sufficient grounds for leave were demonstrated; costs were awarded against the applicant.
20 Apr 1999

MAK YIN CHEUNG v. CHAN HUNG WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

MAK YIN CHEUNG v. CHAN HUNG WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/1998

By majority the application for leave was dismissed because the statutory monetary threshold in s.22(1)(a) was not met and the discretionary limb in s.22(1)(b) was not satisfied: there was no question of great general or public importance nor exceptional circumstances or error sufficient under the "or otherwise" limb to justify leave.