Peter P.F. Chan v. Hong Kong Society of Accountants

CACV000469A/2000

CACV 469/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

OF THE HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS)

_______________________

Coram: Hon. Rogers, VP, Le Pichon, JA, and Burrell, J in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 March 2001

Date of Judgment: 16 March 2001

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This is an application by Mr Chan Po-fun for leave to appeal against a decision of this Court which was handed down on 12 January of this year. The decision of this Court was in an appeal under section 41 of the Professional Accountants Ordinance, Cap. 50. The Disciplinary Committee had expressed itself as satisfied in respect of two complaints on 11 August 2000 and an appeal was brought on Mr Chan's behalf which was heard in December of last year and, as I have said, the judgment was handed down on 12 January of this year.

2. This Court has not considered the merits of the application because a preliminary point was taken, on behalf of the Hong Kong Society of Accountants, that no appeal lay to the Court of Final Appeal because of the provisions of section 41(2) of the Professional Accountants Ordinance. That subsection, which is in the section dealing with appeals to the Court of Appeal under which the appeal was brought, reads:

"The decision of the Court of Appeal, upon such appeal, shall be final."

3. In the judgment of this Court, that concludes the matter. The specific provision which gave this Court jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a domestic tribunal of a professional body is specific that the decision of this Court is final. Therefore, in our view, it does not lie in our power to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Our decision is made final and hence no jurisdiction is bestowed upon the Court of Final Appeal in appeals of this nature.

4. Mr Chan drew our attention to section 22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. In our view that does not advance the matter. The provisions of that section and, indeed, subsections (1)(b) cannot by implication override the specific provision of the Professional Accountants Ordinance. In our view, this application has to be dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Peter P. F. Chan, the Appellant, in person

Mr Jonathan Harris, instructed by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, for the Respondent