Tse Jeekeen v. "H.K. Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movement of China" & Its Chairman Mr Szeto Wah and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 90/1999 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 September 1999.
1. The applicant Mr. Tse Jeekeen seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal by this court on 26th May 1999 of his appeal against the judgment of Cheung, J. The judgement of Cheung, J. was on 24th March 1999 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the master's order striking out his statement of claim. In order to enable Mr. Tse to have leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, he must show that his application is one within the ambit of s.22 of the Hong Kong C
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV000090A/1999 CACV 90/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 1999 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA 22164 OF 1998)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon. Leong, J.A. and Yuen, J. in Court Date of hearing: 2 September 1999 Date of judgment: 2 September 1999 ---------------------------------- DETERMINATION ---------------------------------- Leong, J.A. (giving the determination of the Court): 1. The applicant Mr. Tse Jeekeen seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal by this court on 26th May 1999 of his appeal against the judgment of Cheung, J. The judgement of Cheung, J. was on 24th March 1999 dismissing the applicant's appeal against the master's order striking out his statement of claim. In order to enable Mr. Tse to have leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, he must show that his application is one within the ambit of s.22 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. S.22 of that ordinance provides in relation to civil appeals to the Court of Final Appeal as follows:
2. Mr. Tse this morning has presented his grounds for his application both in writing and orally. Mr. Tse submits that there is a question of great general or public importance because the respondents hold huge rallies every year commemorating the "June 4 event" and if they stop holding such rallies, he would forego his proceedings against them. He submits that the respondents did not have the right to slander other persons but they told the public at the gatherings, matters which were not true and that is a matter of public importance. 3. Further, Mr. Tse submits that it is his right to have his case tried. Relying on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he says that his case should be tried and a fair trial has been denied to him. 4. We have considered this submission and we do not consider that Mr. Tse has in fact indicated really any question for the consideration of the Court of Final Appeal which is of great and general public importance or otherwise that the Court of Final Appeal should decide his case. For this reason, we dismiss the application with costs to the respondents.
Representation: Miss Josephine Chow, instructed by M/S Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners for Respondents Tse Jeekeen, Applicant in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 90/1999