Ng Hon Lam Edgar v. Secretary for Justice
Read the full judgment text of CACV 558/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 February 2024 before Cheung JA, Yuen JA, Au JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – great general or public importance – marriage – same-sex married couples – intestacy scheme – Intestates' Estates Ordinance – Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance – whether status of marriage a distinguishing characteristic – whether legitimate aim of consistent definitions rationally connected to difference in treatment – proportionality – Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice – leave granted – costs in cause of appeal – applicant's costs taxed under legal aid regulations
Legal issues: Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Leave granted to the respondent to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
Cited by 5 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 558/2020, [2024] HKCA 184 On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 558 OF 2020 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3525 OF 2019) _______________
_______________
_______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ Hon Au JA (giving the Decision of the Court): 1.On 24 October 2023, this court handed down its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the respondent’s appeal. 2.By way of the Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2023, the respondent seeks leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the CA Judgment. We will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise stated, we will also adopt in this decision the abbreviations used in the CA Judgment. 4.After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1. 5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 6.In the Notice of Motion, the respondent has set out the following three questions which he says are of great general or public importance:
7.We agree that these questions are of great general or public importance, in particular in light of the Court of Final Appeal’s recent judgment in Sham Tsz Kit v Secretary for Justice. These questions are also inter-dependent and directly or indirectly impact on the important issue of the constitutionality and lawfulness of the relevant intestacy scheme under the IEO and IPO. 8.Further, notwithstanding the applicant’s contrary submissions, we are of the view that the grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Motion cannot be said to be unarguable. 9.In the premises, and for the above reasons, we will grant leave to the respondent to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal for the questions and under the grounds of appeal as set out in the Notice of Motion. 10.We further order on a nisi basis that:
Written submissions by Mr Abraham Chan SC and Ms Denise Souza, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Respondent Written submissions by Mr Jin Pao SC and Mr Azan Marwah, instructed by Daly & Associates, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Applicant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 558/2020