Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lapse of leave

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV129/2016

Fresh leave applications granted after lapse validly revived committal proceedings by way of new originating summons; there is no warrant to import the 6-month Magistrates Ordinance time-bar or magistrates' sentencing limits to criminal contempt arising under Order 52; non-disclosure complaints failed because the lapse was self-evident or immaterial; no legitimate expectation arose to preclude committal proceedings.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW WAI YAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAW WAI YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV134/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because (1) fresh leave applications and issuance of fresh originating summonses were valid despite lapse of earlier leave and use of same case numbers did not taint the fresh applications; (2) non-disclosure of the prior lapse was not materially misleading because the lapse and reasons were self-evident in the procedural context; (3) the 6-month time-bar in s26 Magistrates Ordinance and the statutory sentencing limits for s23 Summary Offences Ordinance could not be analogously imported to criminal contempt given its distinct and more serious character and its role…
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU WAN YING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAU WAN YING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because: (a) fresh leave granted and fresh originating summonses validly commenced new committal proceedings so the lapse of earlier leave did not afford a tenable ground of appeal; (b) the 6-month time-bar and sentencing limits applicable to the statutory summary offence (section 23 SOO) cannot be analogously imported to criminal committal under Order 52 because the offences are different in nature and public interest; (c) non-disclosure of the lapse was not material in the circumstances where the need for fresh leave was self-evident and amendments were legitimat…
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PO YING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PO YING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV78/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the court held there was no realistic prospect of success: fresh leave granted and fresh originating summonses were valid notwithstanding the lapse of prior leave; the 6-month time-bar in the Magistrates Ordinance does not apply by analogy to committal for criminal contempt; the alleged non-disclosure of the fact of lapse in ex parte applications was not material on the facts; and no legitimate expectation arose from the summary charges to constrain committal proceedings.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK KWAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. AU YUK KWAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the court held there was no reasonable prospect of success: fresh leave applications made in July and November 2015 were rightly treated as fresh leave leading to fresh originating summonses entered for hearing in time; the 6-month statutory time-bar in s26 Magistrates Ordinance and the sentencing limits in s23 SOO could not be analogously applied to criminal committal proceedings because criminal contempt is a distinct and more serious interference with the administration of justice and no bad faith was shown; alleged non-disclosure was immaterial on the f…
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG HO MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because (i) fresh leave granted after lapse of earlier leave was procedurally valid and the use of the same case numbers was an administrative matter not determinative, (ii) there was no reasonably arguable basis to import the 6-month time-bar or statutory sentencing limits applicable to s.23 Summary Offences Ordinance into committal for criminal contempt, (iii) the alleged non-disclosure of the lapse of prior leave was not material in the circumstances, and (iv) no legitimate expectation arose that magistrates' protections applied exclusively.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YEUNG HO WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YEUNG HO WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV75/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because fresh leave applications and fresh originating summonses were properly obtained and commenced within the rules; the lapse of earlier leave did not preclude seeking fresh leave or using the same action numbers administratively; the 6‑month time‑bar and maximum penalty provisions applicable to the statutory summary offence (s23 SOO) cannot be analogously imported to criminal contempt which protects the administration of justice; non‑disclosure was not material in the circumstances; and there was no legitimate expectation preventing committal proceedings.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOI TAT SHING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOI TAT SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because there was no arguable prospect of success: fresh leave could properly be granted after lapse and fresh originating summonses commenced valid committal proceedings; the 6-month Magistrates Ordinance time-bar and the maximum penalty for SOO s23 do not apply by analogy to committal for criminal contempt; non-disclosure of the prior lapse was not material in the circumstances; no legitimate expectation arose.
7 Oct 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU PUI YAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV85/2016

Fresh leave applications were properly treated as new leave despite reuse of case numbers; there was no material non-disclosure in ex parte fresh leave applications; the 6-month limitation in s26 Magistrates Ordinance and associated statutory sentencing limits do not analogously apply to committal for criminal contempt; no legitimate expectation arose from s23 arrests that would prevent committal; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and appeals dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
8 Mar 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YEUNG HO WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YEUNG HO WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP797/2015

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 and properly constituted; non-payment of fees (if any) amounted at most to an irregularity that could be cured; alleged non-disclosure was innocent or immaterial and did not warrant setting aside the July Orders; respondents' summonses were dismissed and leave was granted to the Secretary for Justice to fix substantive hearing dates for the consolidated actions.