Read the full judgment text of CACV 576/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 February 2019 before Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Au JJA.
Civil procedure – appeal – interlocutory appeal – leave requirement – Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance – High Court Ordinance s.14AA – Order 59 Rule 21 – Court of Appeal – stay of proceedings – forum non conveniens – HCAJ 3/2018 – CACV 576/2018 – application approach – final versus interlocutory judgment – procedural versus substantive determination – distinction between final determination of substantive rights and procedural step on forum – anti-suit injunction analogy rejected – service out of jurisdiction treated as interlocutory – security for costs, extension of time and admission of evidence treated as interlocutory – purpose of Section 14AA as filtering gateway against unmeritorious interlocutory appeals – proportionate measure – Incorporated Owners of Po Hang Building v Sam Woo Marine Works Ltd – Shell Hong Kong Ltd v Yeung Wai Man Kiu Yip Co Ltd – B + B Construction Ltd v Sun Alliance & London Insurance – Whether a decision dismissing an application to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens is a final or interlocutory decision for the purposes of Section 14AA – Court holds that such a decision is interlocutory because it determines only whether proceedings should be entertained in Hong Kong and does not finally determine any substantive right between the parties; leave to appeal is therefore required – Appeal brought without leave is struck out and dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether a decision on a stay application based on forum non conveniens is final or interlocutory for the purposes of Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance
Outcome: Appeal struck out and dismissed for want of leave; the Defendant required leave under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance to appeal the interlocutory decision dismissing the stay application.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 9 cases