HKSAR v. Wong Ping Shui Adam and Another

Read the full judgment text of CACC 251/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 January 2001 before Stuart-Moore V-P, Woo JA, Seagroatt J.

1. This is an application to this Court, for the granting of a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance in respect of principally two questions which are attached to the Notice of Motion. Those matters, or the matters raised in these questions, were advanced fully by Mr Ching Y Wong SC on the hearing of the original application before us, and are set out fully in the judgment which was delivered in this case on 15 December last.

Legal issues: Application for certificate under s.32(2) CFAO

Outcome: Application for certificate dismissed.

Cited by 4 cases

Case No.CACC 251/2000
Court
Court of Appeal
Date09 Jan 2001
JudgeStuart-Moore V-P, Woo JA, Seagroatt J
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACC000251A/2000

CACC 251/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2000

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 84/2000)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
WONG PING SHUI, ADAM 1st Applicant
LEUNG CHUNG, MICHAEL 2nd Applicant

____________

Coram: Hon Stuart Moore V-P, Woo JA and Seagroatt J in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 January 2001

Date of Judgment: 9 January 2001

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Seagroatt J (giving the judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application to this Court, for the granting of a certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance in respect of principally two questions which are attached to the Notice of Motion. Those matters, or the matters raised in these questions, were advanced fully by Mr Ching Y Wong SC on the hearing of the original application before us, and are set out fully in the judgment which was delivered in this case on 15 December last.

2. We do not consider that there is any point that requires our certification having dealt fully with those matters and the application is therefore dismissed.

Stuart-Moore, VP:

3. We make an order for taxed costs in favour of the Respondent. These costs are to be paid by each Applicant to the extent of 50%, leaving each of them to pay half of the costs of this application.

(Michael Stuart-Moore) (K H Woo) (Conrad Seagroatt)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Mr Ching Y Wong, SC, Mr M K Wong and Ms Kathy Tsang, instructed by Messrs Patrick Chung & Co., Solicitors for the Applicants

Mr Kevin Zervos, SADPP of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under CACC 251/2000