Read the full judgment text of FACV 000008/2000 on BabelCite. This FACV judgment was delivered on 18 July 2000 before Bokhary PJ.
Civil procedure – Court of Final Appeal – stay of execution – inherent jurisdiction – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, s.26 and s.46(2) – single permanent judge – appeal concerning ownership of Taoist temple (Tsing Wan Kun) and funds in court – t'so and clan dispute. Practice and procedure – extension of time for filing printed case – balancing prejudice to parties. The Court of Final Appeal held that it has inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of a judgment under appeal, even where the judgment does not require the appellant to pay money or perform a duty within s.26 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, and that this jurisdiction may be exercised by a single permanent judge as an incidental or interim order necessary to prevent prejudice under s.46(2). On the facts, the court granted the respondents an extension of time to file their printed case up to 27 September 2000 (a compromise between the respondents' request for the end of September and the appellant's request for 22 September), and granted the Secretary for Justice a stay of execution to prevent distribution of the contested funds until determination of the appeal or further order. Costs of the stay application were ordered to be costs in the appeal; costs of the extension application were awarded to the Secretary for Justice in any event.
Legal issues: Extent of extension of time for filing respondents' printed case · Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Final Appeal to grant a stay of execution outside s.26 · Power of single permanent judge to grant a stay under s.46(2) · Whether the stay sought is just and convenient · Costs of the two applications
Outcome: Extension of time granted to respondents to file their printed case by 27 September 2000. Stay of execution granted to the Secretary for Justice until determination of the appeal or further order.