Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of appellate courts

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2012

RE LEUNG KWOK HUNG

Citation

RE LEUNG KWOK HUNG
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV22/2012

The Court held that (1) purposive construction of s22(1)(c) gives the CFA jurisdiction to hear leap-frog appeals in CEEO matters including challenges to CFI orders that put in issue the lawfulness of assuming office; (2) Lam JA was correct to strike out the first statement as outside the temporal scope of ECICO s26 and the continuation argument was not reasonably arguable; (3) where a statutory time limit is unconstitutional, the appropriate remedy is minimal interference with legislative intent (reading-in a discretion to extend time) rather than striking down the limit; (4) given the public…
23 Nov 2011

LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KOON FOO v. CHAMPION CONCORD LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2010

The Court held that the parties gave undertakings in open court which, together with waiver and estoppel, cured the absence of a filed written consent so that the two‑judge Court of Appeal was duly constituted; on the merits the settlement agreement was unambiguous and clause 15 operated to automatically cancel the contract at the Long Stop Date because clause 16 was only triggered by a contested refusal communicated on or before that date, therefore the appeal failed and the lower courts' orders were affirmed.
2 Jun 2010

MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS

Citation

MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV3/2010

Leave to appeal was granted to the Court of Final Appeal solely on the constitutional question whether section 67(3) of the Legislative Council Ordinance is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law because that issue is determinative of whether the applicant may proceed beyond the Court of First Instance; the original application for leave to appeal against the CFI order was dismissed because the appropriate route to challenge the CFI's finality (if the provision is struck down) is by an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the High Court Ordinance, and the Appeal Committee lacked jurisdi…
2 Jun 2010

MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS

Citation

MOK CHARLES PETER v. TAM WAI HO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV11/2010

The Appeal Committee granted leave to appeal on the single constitutional question whether section 67(3) is inconsistent with Article 82 of the Basic Law, dismissed the original application for leave to appeal against Reyes J's order because there was no basis for a direct appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and directed that if section 67(3) is upheld Reyes J's determination remains final, whereas if it is struck down the applicant must pursue a substantive appeal in the Court of Appeal under section 14(1) High Court Ordinance.
5 May 2004

HLF v. MTC

Citation

HLF v. MTC
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV29/2003

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal to itself is final and not a judgment to which s22 Cap 484 appeals lie; the September application was therefore incompetent, and the January renewal was without jurisdiction in any event because O 59 r 14(2A) does not permit renewal after an open court refusal.
19 Nov 2003

FUNG YAT SAI v. HKSAR

Citation

FUNG YAT SAI v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC42/2003

The Court held that the Chief Judge's refusal under s.83Y was not a final decision of the Court of Appeal or Court of First Instance for the purposes of s.31 Cap.484; the proper procedure is for the applicant to apply to the Court of Appeal to renew his application for leave to appeal before seeking leave to the Court of Final Appeal; consequently the Court granted leave to withdraw the present application and allowed the applicant to apply to the Court of Appeal out of time to renew his application.
18 Feb 1997

LEE TIM AND OTHERS v. CHOW SUK CHING t/a WANG CHONG CO.

Citation

LEE TIM AND OTHERS v. CHOW SUK CHING t/a WANG CHONG CO.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV164/1996

The Court allowed the appeal because the High Court erred as a matter of law by substituting its own evaluation of the evidence for the Presiding Officer's findings; the Presiding Officer's conclusion that the claimants were not the respondent's employees was one that could reasonably be entertained on the primary facts and must therefore be restored.
17 Dec 1991

GEORGE TAN SOON GIN v. HIS HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON AND ANOTHER

Citation

GEORGE TAN SOON GIN v. HIS HONOUR JUDGE CAMERON AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/1991

The Court of Appeal accepted jurisdiction and granted leave under the Order in Council because the appeal raised a pure question as to the Court's own statutory jurisdiction (civil v criminal characterisation) and that question was one of great general and public importance suitable for referral under Rule 2(b); therefore it was competent to permit the decision on jurisdiction to be considered by the Judicial Committee.