Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Final vs interlocutory orders

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2017

LAM AND LAI SOLICITORS v. HO CHUN YAN ALBERT

Citation

LAM AND LAI SOLICITORS v. HO CHUN YAN ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP555/2015

The 5 July 2017 judgment was final because it finally resolved the substantive taxation dispute by finding the master had erred in principle (having taken into account irrelevant matters and failed to take into account relevant matters); accordingly section 14AA(1) did not apply, leave to appeal was not required, and the application for leave was dismissed.
27 Aug 2009

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1468/2008

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success: the judge held the underlying order was final (so appeal was in time), but the additional PRC legal opinion and affirmation were not admitted because the applicant failed procedural requirements, the Opinion was irrelevant if Hong Kong law applied, lacked probative particulars on quantum, and there were no exceptional circumstances under Order 32 r 16A(4) to justify late evidence; consequently leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs.
22 Dec 2000

B + B CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SUN ALLIANCE AND LONDON INSURANCE plc.

Citation

B + B CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SUN ALLIANCE AND LONDON INSURANCE plc.
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV26/2000

Where the court proceeds to determine a question under Order 14A on the basis that the determination will finally dispose of the cause or matter and the parties have consented or had an opportunity to be heard, the resulting order is to be regarded as a final order for the purposes of section 22(1)(a); therefore the applicant was entitled to appeal as of right.
18 Jul 1986

CORONATION ELECTRONICS LTD. v. THAROOMALS (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

CORONATION ELECTRONICS LTD. v. THAROOMALS (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/1986

The Court held the order was interlocutory under the settled Fry/White test and therefore not a matter of right to appeal to Her Majesty in Council; leave to appeal is discretionary and was refused because the point did not satisfy the Order in Council requirement of great general or public importance; no special rule makes Order 14 orders ipso facto final.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAM AND LAI SOLICITORS v. HO CHUN YAN ALBERT

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER

B + B CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. SUN ALLIANCE AND LONDON INSURANCE plc.

CORONATION ELECTRONICS LTD. v. THAROOMALS (HONG KONG) LTD.