Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 22 court of final appeal ordinance

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2024

AGCAOILI FREDDIE AGCAOILI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 255
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV286/2023

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, provided no particulars to support asserted grounds including irrationality and procedural unfairness, failed to comply with the Registrar's Directions regarding an oral hearing request, and the application therefore had no merits.
19 Apr 2021

RE MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN

Citation

[2021] HKCA 473
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV173/2020

The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board's decision as required by s22(1)(b) CFAO.
14 Dec 2020

RE GURJANT SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1015
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV88/2018

The second Notice of Motion was dismissed because it was an abuse of court process and did not present any question of great and general public importance required for leave under s22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
8 Feb 2005

WONG HOI CHUNG v. LKK TRANS LTD

Citation

WONG HOI CHUNG v. LKK TRANS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV116/2004

The application for leave was dismissed because damages claimed were unliquidated and do not satisfy section 22(1)(a), and there was insufficient merit or probability to justify exercise of the residual discretion under section 22(1)(b); consequently leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and an order nisi for costs was made in favour of the applicant.
30 Nov 2004

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV460/2002

Majority held the appeal lies as of right under s.22(1)(a) because the dispute is directly about entitlement to the deceased's entire estate which far exceeds $1,000,000 (a winner‑takes‑all dispute); alternatively leave under s.22(1)(b) was appropriate given the exceptional facts and public importance; costs of the application ordered to be in the cause of the appeal (majority).
5 Oct 1999

Chung Yi Yuen v. Lau Koon Shing and Another

Citation

Chung Yi Yuen v. Lau Koon Shing and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/1999

The Court of Appeal concluded that the question whether an intended administrator may institute and pursue proceedings in his own name prior to obtaining letters of administration and the correct interpretation of Order 15 rule 6A vis-à-vis section 55A is a question of great general or public importance; accordingly the court made an order under section 22(1)(b) referring the question to the Court of Final Appeal and accepted the plaintiff's undertaking to notify defendants within 24 hours of any grant of representation.
2 Sept 1999

TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

TSE JEEKEEN v. "H.K. ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA" & ITS CHAIRMAN MR SZETO WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV90/1999

The court refused the application for leave to appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate any question of great general or public importance as required by s.22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
4 May 1999

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/1999

The applications for leave were refused because the case management and interim rulings did not constitute final decisions under s.22(1)(a), did not raise points of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b), and there were no other sufficient reasons to grant leave under s.22(1)(b).
18 Jun 1998

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Citation

HEBEI PEAK HARVEST BATTERY CO. LTD. v. POLYTEK ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV224/1997

The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal's order to remit was not a final judgment within s.22(1)(a) and the questions identified did not meet the threshold of great general or public importance required for discretionary leave under s.22(1)(b); consequently leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed and the matter remitted to the Court of First Instance for rehearing.