Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Final vs interlocutory order

  • 6 Jun 1989

    MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP379/1989

    The application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council was dismissed because the order of 10 May 1989 was interlocutory (parasitic on the underlying matrimonial suit) and therefore not a final judgment; the expectation of recovering HK$500,000 or more on taxation of costs is inchoate and does not constitute a civil right meeting the statutory threshold; and the matter did not raise any question of great general or public importance to justify a discretionary appeal.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Final vs interlocutory order
    • Extension of time
    • Appeal value threshold
    • Stay of proceedings
    • Taxation of costs

  • 28 May 1985

    PERAK PIONEER LIMITED v. BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS

    Citation
    PERAK PIONEER LIMITED v. BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV62/1985

    Leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council was refused because the orders in question were interlocutory (not finally disposing of the winding-up controversy) and the legal questions raised did not satisfy the threshold of great general or public importance required to justify submission to the Privy Council; accordingly the Court exercised its discretionary power to refuse leave.

    • Winding up
    • Substitution and joinder of petitioners
    • Final vs interlocutory order
    • Leave to appeal to privy council
    • Application of foreign precedents

  • 28 May 1985

    PERAK PIONEER LIMITED v. BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS

    Citation
    PERAK PIONEER LIMITED v. BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA FINANCE LIMITED AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV63/1985

    The Court refused leave to appeal because the orders in question were interlocutory (not finally disposing of the controversy) and the legal issues identified did not, in the Court's view, raise questions of great general or public importance to justify submitting the appeal to Her Majesty in Council; accordingly the discretionary power to grant leave was not exercised in the applicants' favor.

    • Leave to appeal
    • Winding‑up petitions
    • Assignment of debts
    • Final vs interlocutory order
    • Construction of companies (winding‑up) rules, rule 33