Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32 court of final appeal ordinance

Legal area

Court

5 May 2016

HKSAR v. MD EMRAN HOSSAIN

Citation

HKSAR v. MD EMRAN HOSSAIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC330/2014

The renewed application under s83Y(3) is a re-hearing by the Court of Appeal, not an appeal from the single Justice's refusal; legislation and authorities permit a single Justice who has refused leave to sit on the re-hearing; the fair‑minded and informed observer would not conclude there is a real possibility of bias in the circumstances; the certificate application was out of time and the proposed questions were not reasonably arguable, therefore certification and the application are refused and dismissed.
4 Nov 2014

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC25/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the points of law advanced were misconceived or not of great and general importance, Article 95 does not create a mandatory duty, the ICCPR claim against the PRC is not justiciable in HKSAR courts, and the applicants failed to establish on the facts an inequality of arms or abuse of process warranting a stay; the courts below properly exercised their discretion.
27 May 2010

HKSAR v. HABIBULLAH ABDUL RAHMAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HABIBULLAH ABDUL RAHMAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC302/2008

The court refused to certify any of the proposed questions because the applicants failed to satisfy the statutory threshold under section 32 (that the questions be of great and general importance and involved in the Court's decision); accordingly the applications by the 2nd and 6th defendants were dismissed.
3 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR

Citation

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1017/2004

The judge refused to certify a point of law of great and general importance because the appellant failed the nullity test for the Notice of Abandonment; accordingly the application for a certificate under s.32 was refused and there was no basis to reopen the appeal.
22 Dec 1999

HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA554/1999

None of the four questions raised qualified as points of law of great and general importance arising from the judge's final decision; the Report contained evidence of deterioration and inadequate safety factors which constituted a proper cause under s27A to justify the BA's Order; admissions and documentary evidence established the wall as retaining such that the point that it was not a retaining wall had no merit; the BA was entitled to require an investigation to a standard acceptable to it and the appellants failed to comply, therefore the certificate is refused and costs ordered.
9 Sept 1999

HKSAR v. WONG KAY DIN

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG KAY DIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC322/1998

The Court dismissed the application for a certificate under s.32 and refused to certify the proposed questions to the Court of Final Appeal. While the court expressed the view that, as a matter of law, a bank payment extinguishes or reduces the payer's chose in action and creates a new chose in action in the payee's account so that the payee did not 'obtain' the payer's property for the purposes of s.6 of the Theft Ordinance, it concluded that the points did not satisfy the statutory requirements for certification and refused to refer them.
16 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC1/1997

When the applicant's interview is read in context the so‑called 'crucial passage' evidences deliberation (he waited, feared a false accusation, then decided to chop the victim) rather than a loss of self‑control; therefore there was no evidence to satisfy the threshold in s4 and provocation should not have been left to the jury; accordingly the application for leave to appeal is refused; additionally s32(2) is construed so that certification by the lower court applies only to the point‑of‑law limb.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. MD EMRAN HOSSAIN

HKSAR v. HON MING KONG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. HABIBULLAH ABDUL RAHMAN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. BUTT AZIZ AKBAR

HKSAR v. LIEM HUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. WONG KAY DIN

HKSAR v. ZENG LIANG XIN