Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32(2) certificate

Legal area

Court

7 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. CHENG CHEE-TOCK, THEODORE

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG CHEE-TOCK, THEODORE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC460/2012

The court refused the s32(2) certificate as the question did not raise a point of law of great and general importance, granted an extension of time but refused the substantive certificate application, and made the respondent's order nisi absolute awarding costs for two counsel because evidence established that two counsel had materially assisted in the respondent's preparation.
21 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC198/2004

The court refused the certificate because the law on whether a Nedrick/Woollin direction is required in the circumstances is well settled and had been correctly applied to the facts; therefore no point of law of great and general importance arose under s32(2).
16 May 2003

HKSAR v.HASHIMI HABIB HALIM

Citation

HKSAR v.HASHIMI HABIB HALIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC526/2001

The court dismissed the application because the applicant failed to demonstrate that any of the four putative points met the statutory test of being points of law of great and general importance under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
8 May 2001

HKSAR v. EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER

Citation

HKSAR v. EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC147/2000

The Court refused the application for a certificate under section 32(2) because the points advanced did not meet the statutory threshold of being of great and general importance and had been comprehensively dealt with in the Court's prior judgment.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHENG CHEE-TOCK, THEODORE

HKSAR v. LEE KWAN KONG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v.HASHIMI HABIB HALIM

HKSAR v. EWAN QUAYLE LAUNDER