5 Sept 2024
The Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal from a master sitting in the bankruptcy jurisdiction because section 98(2) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance mandates that such appeals lie to the Court of Appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the legal aid stay is uplifted only to allow disposal of the appeal.
21 Mar 2022
The court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because a private prosecutor does not have a statutory right to appeal a magistrate's refusal to issue a private summons under the cited provisions of the Magistrates Ordinance; the appeal is therefore dismissed and the proper remedy is judicial review.
15 May 2018
The Court held the sentence was within the appropriate range applying the Abdallah tariff, the one‑year international enhancement and a full one‑third discount; the sentence of 14 years 4 months was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. On the forfeiture claim, assuming without deciding it had jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the application because the applicant withdrew her objection and personally confirmed consent to forfeiture after legal advice, so there was no error in making the forfeiture order.
14 Jul 2015
Application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide substantial grounds to explain the substantial delay and, in any event, his earlier appeal against the forfeiture order constituted an appeal against sentence (s80(1) read with s83I(2)), thereby exhausting his right to appeal; further, on the merits the sentence was lawful and not excessive and disparity arguments did not warrant interference.
13 Nov 2012
The Court held it has jurisdiction under a purposive construction of section 22(1)(c) to hear leap-frog appeals in CEEO matters; Lam JA was right to strike out the first statement as not falling within ECICO s26 (continued publication argument not reasonably arguable); reading in a discretion to extend time is the proper minimal remedial response to an unconstitutional seven-day limit and the appropriate threshold for granting extension is that the petition has a real prospect of success; applying those principles, the challenges to the election lacked reasonable arguability or real prospect…
19 Mar 2002
The Court held that it has jurisdiction to hear appeals from summary dismissals under Rule 6 because such dismissals qualify as 'orders' under sections 10 and 12 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and thus fall within section 13; and the Tribunal erred on the merits by treating lack of convictions of third‑party lenders as a bar to determining misconduct by the solicitor, since the disciplinary inquiry concerns the solicitor's conduct irrespective of whether third parties have been or will be criminally convicted; Re Stromberg was distinguishable and not applicable.
13 Feb 1997
The appeal was dismissed because no point of law was identified; under s.11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance an appeal to this Court lies only on a point of law, and none was presented.