Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interlocutory v final judgment

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2004

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD

Citation

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/2004

Leave under section 22(1)(a) was refused because on the applications test the matter was not a final judgment and the judge below was entitled to dismiss the action for want of prosecution for failure to provide security for costs; the issue was not of sufficient general public importance to justify leave.
3 Jun 2004

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD

Citation

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV137/2002

The Court of Appeal held that it has no jurisdiction to reopen or make further orders after its judgment has been perfected, sealed and filed unless the earlier judgment is demonstrated to be final or set aside; parties' consent cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists, and because the parties would not contend that the earlier decision was final the consent summons was not pursued and the court would not sanction the proposed course.
4 Sept 2000

TONG WAI TAK AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK CHEONG BUILDING (BATTERY STREET)

Citation

TONG WAI TAK AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK CHEONG BUILDING (BATTERY STREET)
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV22/2000

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal's decision under challenge concerned only an interlocutory refusal to dismiss or stay proceedings, raised no question of great, general or public importance and had been overtaken by the Lands Tribunal's final judgment of 8 February 2000; the Committee accepted respondents' undertakings and dismissed the leave application on those terms.
28 Jul 1988

CREDIT AGRICOLE v. CROSSLAND INDUSTRIES CORRORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

CREDIT AGRICOLE v. CROSSLAND INDUSTRIES CORRORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1988

The Court held that the judgment given on the Order 14 application is interlocutory under the established 'application test' and that the applicants therefore do not have an appeal as of right; the Court declined to depart from established precedent or to unilaterally reclassify Order 14 judgments absent rules made under Supreme Court Ordinance s.14(4); accordingly the application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SUNCHASE INTERNATIONAL GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS v. VINCOR GROUP OF COMPANIES (INVESTMENT) LTD

TANG MAN KIT AND ANOTHER v. HIP HING TIMBER CO LTD

TONG WAI TAK AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TAK CHEONG BUILDING (BATTERY STREET)

CREDIT AGRICOLE v. CROSSLAND INDUSTRIES CORRORATION AND ANOTHER