Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right of appeal

Legal area

Court

28 Feb 2022

SITI KHOTIMAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCA 327
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV420/2021

A Court of First Instance judge has jurisdiction, exercising the court's inherent jurisdiction in conjunction with ss27/27A HCO, to make restricted proceedings/orders requiring leave before lodging appeals where there is demonstrated persistent abuse of the appellate process; such orders must be proportionate, include procedural safeguards, and may be final as to leave unless the designating judge grants leave. Applying those principles, the Court dismissed both appeals on merits, set aside SK's RPO for failure to give procedural opportunity but immediately imposed a properly made 5-year RPO…
12 May 2021

RE RAVINDER KUMAR

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL283/2017

The court refused the extension of time because the applicant could not demonstrate any reasonable or realistic prospect of success on the intended appeal: the Board's adverse credibility finding and the Court's prior refusal of leave left no arguable basis for an appeal, and the law precludes extending time for a hopeless appeal.
24 Sept 2020

RE AMBAGAHAGE AJITH KUMARA

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1774/2018

The applicant's summons for leave to appeal is to be treated as a summons to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal; in light of the Court of Final Appeal decision clarifying that no leave under s14AA is required, the court grants an extension of time for 14 days from the order for the applicant to file his Notice of Appeal.
24 Sept 2020

RE MD ASHAD HOSSAIN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1761/2018

Because the Court of Final Appeal held that extension of time to apply for leave is not a separate application and that leave under s14AA is not required to appeal a refusal, the Judge's refusal to extend time should be treated as a refusal of leave and was appealable as of right; the applicant's summons is properly treated as an application to extend time to file the Notice of Appeal and should be granted.
27 Feb 2019

HKSAR v. CHAN SHUI LUN (陳瑞麟)

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 8
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC23/2018

The judge erred by making a costs order without affording the appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard and without applying the statutory and precedent principles (notably HKSAR v Chui Shu Shing) governing when costs may be awarded under the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance; consequently the costs order was quashed and the payment ordered refunded.
23 May 2018

SARAH VICTOR v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL608/2018

The applications were dismissed because no reviewable decision had been made on the dependent visa application (rendering the challenge premature), the Forms 86 failed to identify any decision and were therefore defective, previous non-refoulement determinations precluded re-opening the same issues, the statutory appeal regime and detention reviews applied and the applicants suffered no prejudice from not appealing a removal order whose grounds would inevitably fail; accordingly the applications were not reasonably arguable.
10 Jun 2016

TSANG CHI CHUNG v. YU KIN SAN t/a YU\'S TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG CHI CHUNG v. YU KIN SAN t/a YU\'S TRADING CO AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC701/2015

Section 23 of the Employees Compensation Ordinance affords an unqualified right of appeal in employees compensation proceedings except where s13 applies or the amount in dispute is below $1,000 or parties have agreed to abide by the decision; the Dismissal Order related to substantive recovery of compensation and therefore constituted an appealable 'order of the Court' so leave was not required; accordingly the respondents' application for leave was misconceived and is dismissed; the earlier Leave Refusal Order and its variation are set aside but the costs order of 9 May 2016 is preserved.
8 Apr 2016

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO HANG BUILDING v. SAM WOO MARINE WORKS LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF PO HANG BUILDING v. SAM WOO MARINE WORKS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP415/2014

Section 63B of the District Court Ordinance is constitutionally valid and proportionate; a refusal of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is not a 'judgment of the Court of Appeal' under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and therefore the intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was incompetent and must be dismissed.
27 Dec 2013

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL114/2013

The Building Authority validly served the building orders on EGL/HKTAL in accordance with the priority regime of section 24(2)(c) of the Buildings Ordinance; once valid service was effected BA was entitled to enforcement and was not obliged to serve subsequently emerging purported owners; applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case on statutory duty, mistake of fact, deprivation of appeal or irrationality, therefore leave was refused.
27 Dec 2013

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY

Citation

BILLBOARD ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT LTV v. BUILDING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL147/2013

BA validly served the building orders on Easy Groups Ltd/HKTAL in accordance with s24(2)(c); BA was entitled to act on information available at the time and had no legal duty to serve subsequent claimants or every person who might later assert ownership under Category (i); the applicants failed the reasonable arguability test and leave is dismissed; interim injunction discharged.