Read the full judgment text of CAMP 101/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院上訴法庭 judgment was delivered on 10 July 2018 before Hon Lam VP, Barma and Poon JJA.
Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction — Order 59 Rule 14(3) — Original vs appellate jurisdiction — Leave requirement under Section 14AA High Court Ordinance — Ex parte interlocutory appeals — Arbitration Ordinance section 45 appeal bar — Procedural properness — Discretion appellate standard. This case involves an appellant plaintiffs' application for receivership over shares in a Thai renewable energy company, based on arbitral awards and injunctive relief, which was refused by a first instance judge directing an inter partes hearing. Plaintiffs sought to proceed in the Court of Appeal under Order 59 Rule 14(3) asserting original jurisdiction and exemption from Section 14AA leave requirement. The Court held Rule 14(3) confers only appellate jurisdiction reliant on an extant appeal or leave application and confirmed leave is required for ex parte interlocutory appeals. The Court applied strict criteria for appellate interference with discretion and found no error by the first instance judge. Furthermore, the Arbitration Ordinance barred appeal of the relevant section 45 decision. The application was dismissed and leave refused with costs.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal under Order 59 Rule 14(3) · Leave requirement under Section 14AA for ex parte interlocutory appeals · Appellate court's standard for interfering with exercise of lower court discretion on ex parte relief · Appealability of Court of First Instance decisions under section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance
Outcome: Application for appointment of receivers dismissed with costs; leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 6 cases