Read the full judgment text of CACV 193/2002 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 March 2003 before Le Pichon JA, Cheung JA, Stone J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – section 22(1)(a) automatic right of appeal – monetary value threshold of $1 million or more – section 22(1)(b) matter of great general or public importance – New Territories Ordinance section 15 – registered manager of Wui land – power to grant tenancies – whether consent of Secretary for Home Affairs required – Wui lands held from Government vested in registered manager under section 15 of the New Territories Ordinance – applicant member of Wui challenged fresh fish pond tenancy granted by respondent manager to 2nd defendants – counterclaim – trial judge found no subsisting tenancy with fish pond tenants – majority of Court of Appeal held no lis between parties – First issue: whether automatic right of appeal under section 22(1)(a) arises – court followed Cheng Lai Kwan v Nam Fung Textiles Limited (1997-98) 1 HKCFAR 204, holding automatic right of appeal strictly construed and arising only where matter in dispute is of value of or in excess of precise figure adopted by legislature – question of whether registered manager might grant tenancy without consent is question of power with no monetary value – value of underlying property cannot transmute issue into dispute of monetary value – claims for unliquidated damages do not come within section 22(1)(a) – held: no automatic right of appeal – Second issue: whether matter of great general or public importance arises under section 22(1)(b) – applicant framed question whether registered manager can grant leases or enter tenancy agreements over leasehold interests of tsos, tongs and wuis without consent of Secretary for Home Affairs under section 15 – held (by majority): question did not actually arise on appeal and was merely tangential or incidental – no lis between parties as trial judge found no subsisting tenancy – distinguished from CACV 137 of 2002 where section 15 consent was actually an issue for decision – Cheung JA dissenting would have granted leave as question of whether consent of Secretary of Home Affairs required in granting tenancies by manager of Tso land was matter of great general or public importance – application dismissed with costs.
Legal issues: Whether automatic right of appeal under section 22(1)(a) arises · Whether matter of great general or public importance arises under section 22(1)(b)
Outcome: Application for conditional leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed with costs (by majority: Le Pichon JA and Stone J; Cheung JA dissenting).
Cited by 14 cases · Cites 1 case