3 Dec 2021
Because SCTO s28 makes the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance final and HCO s13(2)(a) does not create a general right of appeal, and because a judge may properly decide a leave application on paper under the Rules of the High Court, the Notice of Appeal was incompetent and must be struck out.
15 Feb 2019
Section 32(3) of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance removes jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to entertain appeals against the refusal of leave by the Court of First Instance in Labour Tribunal matters; Lilik Andayani does not displace that rule and the Court must dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal.
18 Jan 2019
The Court refused the out‑of‑time certificate because the application was inexcusable and excessive delayed, raised issues not argued at the appeal and contrary to the applicant's earlier position, and lacked merit given the high threshold for wasted costs; accordingly certificate denied and costs ordered.
17 Sept 2018
The appeal was struck out because the impugned decisions are not appealable to the Court of Appeal under Order 58 of the Rules of the District Court without prior leave from the Registrar or Master; the applicant did not obtain such leave, failed to follow the required procedural route and did not serve documents, and the filing was therefore an abuse of process warranting dismissal and striking out of the appeal.
2 Aug 2018
Section 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance provides a specific and mandatory right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from orders made in bankruptcy matters and, read with Order 59 r 4(1)(b), means leave to appeal under s 14AA is not required for bankruptcy orders; the appeal period is 28 days from the date of the judgment or order.
4 Sept 2013
The judge conducted a balancing exercise, found the appeal reasonably arguable and that without a stay the appeal might be rendered nugatory and interim services could not be undone; because the hearing could be convened shortly (by October/November) and the balance of public and private interests favored a short stay, the court ordered a stay of the admission pending the hearing of the appeal, conditioned on expeditious prosecution of the appeal and parties returning if the appeal was not heard by November.
24 Aug 2011
Applicant's explanation showed only a mistaken belief about prospects of success and familiarity with the law, not a lack of understanding of the nature or effect of the Notice of Abandonment; therefore the abandonment was not a nullity and the application to treat it as such must be dismissed.
5 Mar 1992
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal founded solely on article 5(4)/s.6 of the Bill of Rights where no statutory right of appeal exists; an application under the Bill of Rights is not equivalent to an application for habeas corpus for the purposes of s.24, and s.6 does not expand appellate jurisdiction beyond what the legislature has provided; accordingly the appeal was struck out as incompetent.
4 Apr 1990
The Court of Appeal held that (1) judicial review applications claiming the civil reliefs under s21K are civil causes or matters so the Court has jurisdiction under s13(2); (2) the warrant complied with the statutory formula in s17(1) and was valid; (3) public interest immunity and ss30 and 30A justified withholding further particulars and precluded interlocutory investigation while confidentiality was needed; and (4) the warrant lawfully limited seizure to unprivileged documents given that documents used in furtherance of a criminal offence attract no legal professional privilege.
13 Mar 1990
The Court had no jurisdiction to relist and rehear sentence because no statute confers such power, the appellant was present when sentence was pronounced so the decision was final, and English precedents permit reconsideration only where there has been procedural error or the decision was not properly determined, neither of which applied; accordingly the application to relist was refused.