Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restoration of appeal

Legal area

Court

19 May 2017

HKSAR v. DRAGUNOV EVGENY

Citation

HKSAR v. DRAGUNOV EVGENY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC266/2014

The Court refused to treat the Notice of Abandonment as a nullity because the evidence demonstrated the abandonment was a deliberate and informed act and the applicant's long delay in seeking restoration was inordinate and inexcusable; accordingly the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the leave to appeal application and, on examination, the starting point and enhancement for sentence were correct and the information provided produced no tangible assistance meriting further discount.
27 Aug 2010

HKSAR v. LAI SAU MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI SAU MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC36/2009

Application dismissed because applicant produced no evidence that his prior abandonment was not a deliberate and informed act; absent such a showing the court cannot treat the abandonment as a nullity and therefore has no jurisdiction to reopen the dismissed appeal.
27 Apr 2010

HKSAR v. LO MAN NAM, ALEX

Citation

HKSAR v. LO MAN NAM, ALEX
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC461/2007

The application was refused because the applicant knew what he was doing when he signed the Notice of Abandonment and therefore the abandonment was not a nullity, so the appeal could not be restored and the merits need not be considered.
15 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. LI CHEUK KWAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI CHEUK KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC351/2005

The abandonment was a deliberate and informed decision by an experienced offender; no evidence showed his mind did not go with his act; therefore leave to treat the abandonment as a nullity and to restore the appeal was refused, and in any event the aggregate sentence of 5 years 2 months was not excessive or wrong in principle.
8 May 2007

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HOI LAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC389/2004

On the evidence the applicant had recovered from schizophrenic symptoms by 9 October 2004 and there was no evidence of relapse by 26 October 2004 when he signed and lodged Form VII; mere poor judgment does not establish lack of appreciation of the nature or effect of the act; therefore the abandonment was not a nullity and the application to treat it as such is dismissed.
10 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. FU CHIU WA

Citation

HKSAR v. FU CHIU WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC452/2002

The abandonment was final and valid: the plain language of Form VII and the applicant's contemporaneous act showed his mind went with his act, there was no credible evidence of misunderstanding or misleading conduct to nullify the abandonment, and therefore the application to treat the abandonment as a nullity must be dismissed.
13 Apr 2005

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR

Citation

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1017/2004

The judge found the appellant had received advice about prospects and costs and made a deliberate and informed decision to abandon the appeal; therefore the Notice was not a nullity and the application to reinstate the appeal was refused.
19 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. LAU YUK LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU YUK LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA912/2002

The appellant's handwritten abandonment was clear and did not meet the legal test to be treated as a nullity; accordingly the application to restore the appeal was dismissed, and on the merits the 15 month consecutive sentence was lawful and not manifestly excessive.
27 Oct 1995

CHAN SAI LUNG SYLVESTER and Another v. CHAN SAI LUN, HENRY

Citation

CHAN SAI LUNG SYLVESTER and Another v. CHAN SAI LUN, HENRY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/1995

The restoration application was refused because once an order was drawn up the court was functus officio; leave to appeal to the Privy Council was refused because the appellants had flagrantly failed to comply with rules for filing appeal bundles, rendering consideration of the appeal impracticable, and because the appeal lacked merit.
18 Dec 1991

NG PING KUY PATRICK v. POON HON SING AND OTHERS

Citation

NG PING KUY PATRICK v. POON HON SING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/1991

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to give a sufficiently clear and unambiguous explanation to restore their abortive appeal against the master’s refusal to strike out the action and so restoration was refused for that part; however the 5th defendant demonstrated an arguable case that service may have been invalid and that she could not meet the payment condition, so her appeal against the default judgment was restored and a stay of execution granted; costs were allocated accordingly.