Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Certificate under s.32(2) court of final appeal ordinance

  • 7 Nov 2025

    HKSAR v. KWOK MAN CHI

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 5396
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA186/2023

    The application for a certificate under s.32(2) Cap.484 is refused because the proposed question is not reasonably arguable or of great and general importance: the purported conflict between Li Cho Nim and the present Judgment is illusory and attributable to different factual matrices; furthermore the statutory test under s.16A(1) Cap.237 — that the demand notice did not come to personal notice without neglect — must be satisfied in review proceedings and the applicant failed to meet that test.

    • Fixed penalty (traffic contraventions) ordinance
    • Section 16 and 16a review
    • Certificate under s.32(2) court of final appeal ordinance
    • Magistracy review proceedings

  • 21 Dec 2011

    HKSAR v. KULEMESIN YURIY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. KULEMESIN YURIY AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC19/2010

    The Court certified under s.32(2) that a point of law of great and general importance exists limited to the mens rea question: whether the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to endanger or was reckless as to whether endangerment was caused under s.72 of the Shipping and Port Control Ordinance; the Court declined to certify the third "reasonable excuse" question and the COLREGS questions.

    • Mens rea
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Certificate under s.32(2) court of final appeal ordinance
    • Colregs interpretation

  • 17 Nov 1999

    HKSAR v. LAU TAT KEUNG MILKY

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAU TAT KEUNG MILKY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC4/1999

    The application was refused because certification by the Court of Appeal is limited to the point of law limb and the applicant improperly sought certification on both limbs; the application was out of time under the practice direction with no adequate explanation and, in any event, failed to identify a point of law of great and general importance, therefore no certificate could be granted.

    • Certificate under s.32(2) court of final appeal ordinance
    • Point of law of great and general importance
    • Substantial and grave injustice limb
    • Practice direction on timing of applications
    • Time bar and procedural compliance