Leung Kit-hing, Doris v. The Magistrate-in-charge of All Case Management Matters At Kowloon City Magistrates’ Courts and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 104/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 December 2018 before Lam VP, Chu JA, Poon JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – requirements under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 – question of great, general public importance – intended appeal devoid of merits – application refused – notice of motion dismissed
Legal issues: Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; notice of motion dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 104/2018 [2018] HKCA 919 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 104 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 419/2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Poon JJA in Court Date of Written Submissions: 10 October 2018 Date of Judgment: 10 December 2018 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.We dismissed this appeal on 17 September 2018. 2.By a notice of motion of 26 September 2018, the applicant sought urgent leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.In the Notice of Motion, she did not set out any questions of great, general public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. 4.Directions were given by the Registrar for processing the application in accordance with Practice Direction 2.1. 5.We have read the notice of motion and the written submissions lodged by the applicant on 10 October 2018. Having done so, we cannot discern any question of great, general public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal. Nor can we see any other ground to warrant this case to be submitted to that Court for determination. 6.In short, the applicant fails to satisfy us that her intended appeal has features which meet the requirements in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. 7.Further, as explained in our judgment of 17 September 2018, the intended appeal is totally devoid of merits. 8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave and the notice of motion of 26 September 2018 is dismissed accordingly.
The applicant acting in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 104/2018