Read the full judgment text of HCMP 488/2015 (and 16 other consolidated HCMP proceedings: HCMP 490, 491, 492, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506 of 2015) on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 1 September 2015 before Chow J (Anderson Chow).
Civil procedure – contempt of court – criminal contempt – committal proceedings – leave to apply for committal – whether leave lapses if originating summons is not 'entered for hearing' within 14 days – interpretation of 'entered for hearing' under Order 52, rule 3(2), Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) – whether issuing a notice of appointment to hear the originating summons is required, or whether mere issuance of the originating summons suffices – application of Order 3, rule 5 to extend time – applicability of Rules of the High Court to criminal proceedings under Order 1, rule 2(3) – whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to extend time in criminal contempt proceedings – events at Argyle Street on 25 November 2014 in connection with an Injunction Order granted by Au J on 10 November 2014 in HCA 2086/2014 – Secretary for Justice brings 17 originating summonses against 17 respondents for criminal contempt – leave granted 20 March 2015 – originating summonses issued 2 April 2015 – no Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons issued within 14 days due to oversight and misunderstanding by the Department of Justice – Time Summons issued to extend time – First issue: whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Effiscient Ltd v Lehman [2012] 3 HKLRD 671 (and CACV 177/2012) is binding on a first-instance judge – held: yes, the decision is binding; the holding that 'entered for hearing' means issuing a notice of appointment was an essential step in the Court of Appeal's reasoning and forms part of the ratio decidendi; a first-instance judge cannot refuse to follow a directly relevant Court of Appeal decision on the ground of per incuriam (Pau Chi-keung; Cassell v Broome applied) – Second issue: whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to extend time under Order 52, rule 3(2) in criminal contempt proceedings – held: no – Order 52, rule 3(2) is in unequivocal mandatory terms ('the leave shall lapse'); the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot lay down procedure contrary to or inconsistent with an express statutory rule (So Wing Keung v Sing Tao Ltd; Re Merck Sharp & Dohme applied); Effiscient's statement on inherent jurisdiction was made in a civil contempt case where Order 3, rule 5 power was available and is distinguishable; foreign authorities support strict compliance – Third issue: exercise of discretion – held: had discretion existed, the court would have extended time because the Secretary for Justice could commence fresh proceedings, so non-extension would only waste time and costs; but the question does not arise because no discretion exists – The Secretary for Justice accepted that the contempt was criminal (Director of the Serious Fraud Office v O'Brien applied) and that Order 3, rule 5 had no application to criminal proceedings under Order 1, rule 2(3) (Chan Mei Yiu Paddy applied) – Outcome: Time Summons dismissed in each of the 17 actions; leave to apply for committal held to have lapsed; no formal declaration granted; costs and other outstanding issues adjourned to be heard.
Legal issues: Whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Effiscient Ltd v Lehman is binding on a first-instance judge · Whether the court has inherent jurisdiction to extend time under Order 52, rule 3(2) in criminal contempt proceedings · Whether, if inherent jurisdiction existed, the court would have exercised its discretion to extend time
Outcome: Time Summons dismissed in each of the 17 actions; the court held that the leave granted to the Secretary for Justice to apply for an order of committal on 20 March 2015 had lapsed by reason of failure to comply with Order 52, rule 3(2). No formal declaration granted. Question of costs and other outstanding issues adjourned to be heard.
Cites 4 cases