Chan Tin Shi v. Li Tin Sung and Others
Read the full judgment text of CACV 71/2003 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 January 2005 before Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Yuen JA.
Civil appeal – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal – Section 22(1)(b) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap. 484 – matter of great general or public importance – New Territories land – New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance Cap. 150 s.6 – whether s.6 created a new estate in respect of government leases – effect on adverse possession and the Limitation Ordinance Cap. 347 – relevance of possession prior to 25 April 1988 or 30 June 1997 – divided Court of Appeal – conflicting first-instance decisions – leave granted on the formulated question on the usual terms – security for costs of $400,000 – stay of execution pending determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
Legal issues: Whether to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the effect of Section 6 of the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal granted on the formulated question.
Cited by 9 cases
|
CACV71/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 4191 OF 1998)
BETWEEN
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon and Yuen JJA in Court Date of Hearing: 27 January 2005 Date of Judgment: 27 January 2005
J U D G M E N T
Hon Rogers VP: 1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of this court dated 19 November 2004. The application was not made under Section 22(1)(a) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap. 484 because the value of the land does not come to that amount. This court has indicated it is not prepared to make orders under Section 22(1)(b) on paper. It is necessary, where there are matters of great general and public importance, that the applications are made in court. 2.One of the reasons for the application to have to be made in court is that it is important for all parties to concentrate their minds on exactly what the question is. Unfortunately, the issues were ventilated in general terms. It is quite clear that this is a matter which should go to the Court of Final Appeal because not only was this court divided on the effect of the New Territories Leases (Extension) Ordinance Cap. 150 but there are conflicting decisions at first instance. In those circumstances it is important that the effect of this Ordinance should be decided once and for all. 3.Prior to the hearing today, the question had not been fully formulated and we asked that that should be done. We were not particularly happy with the formulation that was presented to us at short notice. So, we ourselves have formulated a question in the course of a very short adjournment and with the difficulty of not having been able to consider it over any lengthy period. 4.The question that we have formulated is as follows:
5.On that basis, this court gives leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the usual terms, which we understand have been agreed between the parties, that security for costs in the sum of $400,000 be provided and that there be a stay of execution pending determination of the matter in the Court of Final Appeal.
Mr Andrew Mak, instructed by Messrs Chan & Associates, for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr Edward Fan, instructed by Messrs Yeung & Chan, for the Defendants/Respondents |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 71/2003