Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 14aa high court ordinance

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2021

RE MASRUROH IMAS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 558
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP162/2019

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and their intended grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable on the merits; accordingly the statutory criteria for granting leave were not met.
8 Apr 2021

RE BEPARI HIRU

Citation

[2021] HKCA 395
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP149/2019

The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because it was out of time with no explanation and failed to raise any question of great general or public importance or to identify any error by the judge; the court also considered the merits and found them devoid of merit, rendering further appeal futile.
13 Nov 2020

RE SOHEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 857
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP214/2019

Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants' notice of motion amounted to mere disagreement, did not raise any question of great general or public importance nor present an arguable point, and their intended appeal lacked merit and was futile; the statutory criteria in s22(1)(b) Cap.484 were not met.
29 Sept 2020

RE SARABJIT SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1724/2018

Because the Court of Final Appeal held that refusal of an extension of time to apply for leave to commence judicial review is not a discrete application requiring leave, the court treated the applicant's summons as an application to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal and granted a 14-day extension to file the Notice of Appeal.
29 Apr 2019

Miss LEUNG SO HUNG SIEM v. Mr CARSON WEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA121/2017

The recorder applied section 14AA and relevant authorities, concluded the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to permit it, and therefore refused the extension of time and leave to appeal and dismissed the proposed appeal.
14 Dec 2018

RE SRILESTARI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2018

Section 14AB of the High Court Ordinance precludes an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision on whether leave to appeal under s14AA should be granted; therefore the applicant's notice of motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was impermissible and was dismissed.
13 Aug 2018

SYMPHONY PARTNERS LTD AND OTHERS v. FULLERTON BAY INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 505
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP101/2018

Order 59 Rule 14(3) does not confer original jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal and is only available where there is an extant appeal or pending application for leave; it cannot be used to avoid the statutory leave requirement in Section 14AA HCO; further, s45(10) Arbitration Ordinance precluded the intended appeal of the CFI decision here, so leave was refused and the application dismissed.
7 Aug 2018

RE SRILESTARI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 477
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV111/2018

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the application was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation, the substantive challenge to the TCAB decision was not reasonably arguable (no error of law or unfairness and the decisions met the enhanced Wednesbury standard), and leave under Section 14AA was therefore properly refused; failure to comply with an unless order to lodge skeleton submissions resulted in abandonment of the oral hearing.
23 Jul 2018

KWOK CHEUK KIN v. LEUNG CHUN YING

Citation

[2018] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV110/2017

Refusal to grant an extension of time under Order 53 r.4 is a discrete interlocutory decision distinct from a refusal of leave under r.3 and is not within the express exemptions of Order 59 r.21; therefore s.14AA applies and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is required. Leave was refused in both appeals because neither had a reasonable prospect of success and no other interest-of-justice reason existed.
23 Jul 2018

MI AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURTIY

Citation

[2018] HKCA 419
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV162/2017

Refusal to grant an extension of time under Order 53 r.4(1) is an interlocutory decision distinct from refusal of leave under Order 53 r.3; it is not covered by the Order 59 r.21(1)(g) exemption and therefore falls within Section 14AA so leave to appeal is required. Applying the leave criteria, the Court refused leave in both appeals because there was no reasonable prospect of success (serious unjustified delay and lack of arguable merit).