Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction to grant fresh leave

Legal area

Court

6 May 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2922/2015

The court held there is no implied six‑month time bar limiting the Secretary's ability to seek leave to apply for committal for contempt; criminal contempt is distinct from the Section 23 offence and statutory time or sentencing limits for Section 23 do not automatically apply to contempt proceedings; prosecutorial discretion under Article 63 permits the Secretary to elect committal where there are good public interest reasons; the court has jurisdiction to grant fresh leave after earlier leave has lapsed; the Secretary's fresh applications were not an abuse of process. Accordingly the respon…
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP798/2015

The court held that lapse of leave under Order 52 rule 3(2) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July 2015 applications were fresh leave applications properly constituted; non-payment of fees (if any) would be an irregularity, not a nullity, and could be cured; no material non-disclosure was established warranting setting aside the July Orders, and accordingly the respondents' summonses were dismissed.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP778/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 r3(2) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the 22 July 2015 applications constituted fresh leave applications and, even if fees were payable, non-payment would be an irregularity curable by the court; there was no material non-disclosure or breach of duty of candour warranting discharge of the July Orders, which are therefore upheld.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWAN SIU WANG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWAN SIU WANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP788/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 r3(2) does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July 2015 applications were fresh leave applications properly granted; any failure to pay prescribed fees for the 2nd leave applications (if required) amounted at most to a curable irregularity; there was no material non-disclosure or breach of the duty of candour warranting discharge of the July Orders; respondents' summonses challenging the July Orders were dismissed and leave was confirmed enabling the Secretary for Justice to fix substantive he…
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI HONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP787/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 r3(2) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July (2nd) leave applications were fresh and properly constituted; non-payment of any additional fee (if required) would be an irregularity curable by payment; material non-disclosure was not established and, if present, was innocent and would not justify discharging the July Orders; respondents' summonses are dismissed and leave to apply for committal as granted on 30 July 2015 is upheld.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI YIN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG KAI YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP777/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 rule 3(2) prevents reliance on that specific leave but does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July 2015 applications were properly constituted fresh leave applications, non-payment of an additional fee in the existing proceedings did not render them nullities, any irregularity could be cured, and there was no material non-disclosure warranting setting aside the July Orders; accordingly the respondents' summonses were dismissed and leave to fix substantive hearing dates was granted.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG LAI WAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG LAI WAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP794/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 r3(2) does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July 2015 leave applications were fresh, properly constituted and any failure to pay fees would be an irregularity curable by the court; there was no material non‑disclosure justifying setting aside the July Orders, therefore the respondents' summonses are dismissed.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SZETO TSE LONG JASON

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SZETO TSE LONG JASON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP793/2015

The lapse of leave under Order 52 r3(2) does not oust the court's jurisdiction to grant fresh leave in the same proceedings; the July 2015 applications constituted fresh leave applications and were properly granted; non-payment of additional prescribed fees (if any) would amount at most to an irregularity and not a nullity; there was no material non-disclosure or breach of candour sufficient to set aside the July Orders; respondents' summonses were therefore dismissed and the July Orders upheld.