Rank Profit Industries Ltd v. Director of Lands
Read the full judgment text of CACV 94/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 January 2009 before Hon Tang VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J.
1. Basically, this appeal involves one question, namely, whether the Director of Lands, as an agent for the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in deciding whether or not to grant modification of the terms and conditions of government leases in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is exercising a public law function susceptible to judicial review. This is the first question identified in the Notice of Motion dated 3 June 2008.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACV 94/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 126 OF 2005) ---------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Before: Hon Tang VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court Date of Hearing: 8 January 2009 Date of Decision: 8 January 2009 ---------------------- D E C I S I O N -------------------- Hon Tang VP: 1.Basically, this appeal involves one question, namely, whether the Director of Lands, as an agent for the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in deciding whether or not to grant modification of the terms and conditions of government leases in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is exercising a public law function susceptible to judicial review. This is the first question identified in the Notice of Motion dated 3 June 2008. 2.The other questions either follow from this question, or they are not really relevant to the appeal. 3.We believe this question has been settled by authorities, including decisions of the Court of Final Appeal, which are binding on us. That being the case, I do not believe this is a suitable case for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal to be granted. 4.Mr Yim suggested that this might be a case where we would exercise our discretion on the “or otherwise” limb, but leave to appeal on that basis is highly exceptional. I do not believe Swire Properties Ltd and Ors v Secretary for Justice, [2002] 4 HKC 117, supports his submission that this is a case where we should give leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” basis. So I would refuse leave to appeal. Hon Le Pichon JA: 5.I agree. Hon Sakhrani J: 6.I also agree. Hon Tang VP: 7.Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Mr. Valentine Yim and Mr. Vincent Chen, instructed by Messrs. Wong, Hui & Co., for the Applicant Mr. Benjamin Yu, SC, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Respondent Appeal dismissed: see FAMV7/2009 dated 25 June 2009 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 94/2007