Read the full judgment text of CACV 514/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 January 2019 before Lam VP, Poon JA.
Civil procedure – appeal – leave requirement under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance – appeal against interlocutory decision – refusal of extension of time as interlocutory decision – appeal brought out of time – whether leave required before appeal can be brought – whether Recorder's oral determination on 16 July 2018 took effect immediately – effect of reserved reasons – Order 42 Rule 3 – Order 58 Rule 1(3) – Order 59 Rules 2B, 4 and 5 – master's decision to strike out appeal on 26 April 2018 – Plaintiff's notice of appeal filed on 23 May 2018 beyond 14-day limit – Recorder refusing extension of time and orally dismissing appeal on 16 July 2018 – reasons handed down on 6 September 2018 – Plaintiff appealing Recorder's decision to Court of Appeal without obtaining or applying for Section 14AA leave – court holding that refusal of extension of time is an interlocutory decision requiring Section 14AA leave, following Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying and similar authorities – appeal held incompetent and struck out – Recorder's oral order taking effect immediately on 16 July 2018 notwithstanding later reasons – Order 42 Rule 3(2) and (3) – no postponement of effect pending sealed order – Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the 1st, 4th and 5th Defendants summarily fixed at $75,000 on a party-to-party basis – some photocopying charges and certain costs under C1, C3, D1 and D3 reduced.
Legal issues: Whether leave is required before this appeal can be brought · Whether the Recorder's refusal of extension of time is an interlocutory decision requiring leave · Whether the Recorder's oral determination on 16 July 2018 took effect immediately
Outcome: Appeal struck out as incompetent for want of leave under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance.
Cited by 17 cases · Cites 5 cases