BabelCite

Town Planning Board v. Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd

Read the full judgment text of FAMV 26/2003 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 29 September 2003 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.

Civil procedure – leap-frog appeal – leave to appeal directly from Court of First Instance to Court of Final Appeal – question of law of great public importance – urgency – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 Division 3 of Part II – Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd – application for leave granted – expedited timetable set – appeal to be heard on 9-12, 15 and 16 December 2003

Legal issues: Leave to appeal directly from Court of First Instance to Court of Final Appeal

Outcome: Leave to appeal granted; appeal set for hearing on expedited basis.

Case No.FAMV 26/2003
Court
FAMV
Date29 Sep 2003
JudgeMr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

FAMV000026/2003

FAMV No. 26 of 2003

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 26 OF 2003 (CIVIL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM HCAL NO. 19 OF 2003)

_____________________

Between:
TOWN PLANNING BOARD Applicant
SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF THE HARBOUR LIMITED Respondent

_____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ

Date of Determination: 29 September 2003

_________________________________

DETERMINATION

_________________________________

Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:

1. This application is the first of its kind. It is an application for leave to bring a civil appeal directly from the Court of First Instance of the High Court to the Court of Final Appeal. Provision for such "leap-frog" appeals is made by the recently introduced Division 3 of Part II of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. The trial judge has issued the necessary certificate. We are satisfied that this case involves a question of law which, by reason of its great public importance, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. And we are also satisfied that such decision is so urgently required that a "leap-frog" appeal is warranted. The respondent society consented to the certificate. It also consents to leave to appeal. Exercising our power to do so without an oral hearing, we grant leave to bring such an appeal.

2. An early hearing of the appeal being highly desirable, we have invited the parties to endeavour to agree an expedited procedural time-table. They have achieved such agreement. Their proposal is set out in a letter dated 13 September 2003 from the Department of Justice to the Registrar. Quoting from that letter, we direct the following time-table:

"

 7 October Board to file and serve Notice of Appeal (rr14 and 16)
Board to file Affidavit of Service (rl6(b))
10 October Board to file and serve Part A of Record (r 32)
27 October Board to file and serve its Case (r25)
24 November Society to file and serve its Case (r26)
26 November Board to send proposed index for Part B of Record to Society for comment (r33)
3 December Society to provide comments, if any, on draft index to Part B Board to submit agreed Part B of Record to Registrar for approval (r36)
5 December Board to file and serve approved Part B of Record (r37)
Parties to file and serve lists of authorities (r42)."

3. The parties have indicated that six hearing days will probably be needed, and have requested six working days during the period 9 to 19 December 2003. This appeal will be set down for hearing on the six working days 9-12, 15 and 16 December 2003.

(Kemal Bokhary) (Patrick Chan) (R.A.V. Ribeiro)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Permanent Judge

Representation:

Written submissions from Mr Robert Tang SC and Mr Nicholas Cooney (instructed by Department of Justice) for the applicant

The respondent consented to the application