Read the full judgment text of CACV 164/2004 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 30 March 2005 before Yuen JA, Tang JA.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – interlocutory decision – stay of execution – special circumstances – Order 59 Rule 14(4) RHC – s.22(1)(b) Cap 484 – practice direction 25.1 – Restricted stamp – chambers hearing – evidence of danger to public – security for costs – Defendant applied for leave to appeal from Court of Appeal decisions of 7 January 2005 – four proposed questions considered – 1st question: whether stay can be granted without prior application to court below – held: no, because no special circumstances shown – 2nd question: whether judge's Restricted stamp and alleged errors constituted special circumstances – held: no, Restricted stamp is standard for chambers hearings and mere error does not justify bypassing court below – 3rd question: whether removal of obstructions posed danger to public – held: not engaged because no evidence filed – 4th question: whether court should have considered chances of success on security for costs appeal – held: not engaged because no submissions made – application dismissed with costs order nisi in favour of Plaintiff.
Legal issues: 1st question: Whether stay can be granted when applicant did not apply to court below · 2nd question: Whether judge's conduct (Restricted stamp) created lack of confidence · 3rd question: Whether removal of obstructions might pose danger to public · 4th question: Whether court should have considered chances of success on security for costs appeal
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case