Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Per incuriam

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI YU SING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LAI YU SING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP492/2015

The court is bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Effiscient v Lehman that, for the purpose of Order 52 r3(2), "entered for hearing" means issuing a Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons; in criminal contempt proceedings the Rules do not generally apply and the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the 14‑day period prescribed by Order 52 r3(2); therefore the Secretary for Justice's leave to apply for committal has lapsed and the Time Summons must be dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG KA YEE

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG KA YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP500/2015

The Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient is binding: 'entered for hearing' under Order 52 r.3(2) means issuing a Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons; in criminal contempt proceedings the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the 14‑day time limit prescribed by Order 52 r.3(2); accordingly the Secretary for Justice's leave to apply for committal lapsed for failure to issue the notice within 14 days and the Time Summons is dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU SUI YING

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHU SUI YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP498/2015

The court is bound by the Court of Appeal in Effiscient v Lehman that for Order 52 r 3(2) 'entered for hearing' means issuing a notice of appointment to hear the originating summons; because these matters are criminal contempts and the Rules generally do not apply (Order 1 r 2(3)), the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with the clear statutory requirement in Order 52 r 3(2); the Secretary for Justice's leave to apply for committal therefore lapsed for each of the 17 matters and the Time Summons is dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTIC v. LEUNG HON LAM

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTIC v. LEUNG HON LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP506/2015

The Court of First Instance is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient; for the purpose of Order 52 r.3(2) the requirement to have the originating summons 'entered for hearing' entails issuing a notice of appointment to hear the originating summons and the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the 14-day period for compliance in criminal contempt proceedings; accordingly the leave granted on 20 March 2015 has lapsed and the Time Summons is dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WING WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP504/2015

The Court is bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Effiscient that, for the purpose of Order 52 r3(2), entering an originating summons for hearing requires issuing a Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons; because no notice was issued within 14 days the leave granted on 20 March 2015 has lapsed and the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend that statutory time limit in criminal contempt proceedings where the statutory provision is clear and mandatory.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIEW YUN LONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SIEW YUN LONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP490/2015

The Court of First Instance is bound by the Court of Appeal in Effiscient that "entering an originating summons for hearing" under Order 52 r3(2) means issuing a notice of appointment to hear the originating summons; because no notice was issued within 14 days the statutory leave lapsed and the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend that mandatory period in criminal contempt proceedings.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN JEFFREY

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN JEFFREY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP495/2015

The Court held that the Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient Ltd v Lehman is binding such that, for the purpose of Order 52 r.3(2), entering an originating summons for hearing means issuing a notice of appointment to hear it; because the notices were not issued within 14 days the leave granted on 20 March 2015 lapsed; the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with Order 52 r.3(2) in criminal contempt proceedings; accordingly the Time Summons was dismissed and the leave has lapsed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN WAI FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP496/2015

The Court of First Instance is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient that 'entered for hearing' under Order 52 r3(2) requires issue of a notice of appointment to hear; in criminal contempt proceedings the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the 14‑day period in Order 52 r3(2); therefore the leave granted on 20 March 2015 lapsed for failure to issue the notice within 14 days and the Time Summons is dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LOU TIT MAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LOU TIT MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP505/2015

The court is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient that 'entered for hearing' under Order 52 r3(2) requires issuance of a Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons; because these are criminal contempt proceedings and Order 52 r3(2) is mandatory, the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend the 14‑day period and therefore the leave granted on 20 March 2015 has lapsed for each of the 17 actions; the Time Summons is dismissed.
1 Sept 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN PAK TAO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP503/2015

The Court of First Instance is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Effiscient v Lehman that "entered for hearing" means issuance of a notice of appointment to hear; the 14 day requirement in Order 52 r 3(2) is mandatory; the court has no inherent jurisdiction to extend that time in criminal contempt proceedings; consequently the leave granted on 20 March 2015 lapsed for all 17 cases and the Time Summons must be dismissed.