Re Chan Wing Hing
Read the full judgment text of CACV 153/2005 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 March 2006.
1. This is an application by the Official Receiver for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from our judgment handed down on 16 January 2006.
Cited by 4 cases
|
CACV 153/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2005 (ON APPEAL FROM hcb 2084 nO. OF 2000) _______________________ RE: CHAN WING HING, a bankrupt EXPARTE: THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF CHAN WING HING, a bankrupt ________________________
CACV 154/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2005 (ON APPEAL FROM hcb 2848 nO. OF 2000) _______________________ RE: LIN HAI SAN, a bankrupt EXPARTE: THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF LIN HAI SAN, a bankrupt ________________________ Before: Hon Yeung JA, Yuen JA and Waung J in Court Date of Hearing: 22 March 2006 Date of Judgment: 22 March 2006
______________________ J U D G M E N T ______________________
Hon Yeung JA (giving judgment of the Court): 1.This is an application by the Official Receiver for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from our judgment handed down on 16 January 2006. 2.This is not a case of appeal as of right under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, but one made pursuant to section 22(1)(b) on the basis that each of the questions involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 3.We have carefully considered the questions of law set out in the application and the written submission of Mr Beresford for the Official Receiver. 4.Question 1 is clearly a point of law of general public importance. Whilst our judgment may not directly involve questions 2 and 3, it clearly has impact on them and they are also, in our view, points of law of general public importance. 5.We are persuaded that those questions ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 6.We therefore grant leave as sought. 7.In view of the background, and the nature of the application and in line with Mr Beresford’s submission, we make no order as to costs.
Mr Roger Beresford for the Official Receiver Respondent in CACV 153/2005: Chan Wing Hing, in person, Absent. Respondent in CACV 154/2005: Lin Hai San, in person, Absent. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 153/2005