Hui Kee Chun v. The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data
Read the full judgment text of CACV 401/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 July 2009.
1. On 5 March 2009 this court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal from a decision of Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan given on 30 November 2007 dismissing his appeal from Master Yu’s order given on 11 July 2007 striking out his claim in HCA1980/2006. The reasons for our order have been set out in the judgment handed down on 5 March 2009 and will not be repeated here.
Cited by 4 cases
|
CACV 401/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 401 of 2007 (On Appeal from HCA No. 1980 of 2006) ___________________________ BETWEEN:
Before: Hon Tang V-P, Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court Date of hearing: 17 July 2009 Date of judgment: 22 July 2009 ------------------------------------ JUDGMENT ----------------------------------- Hon. Yuen JA (giving the judgment of the court): 1.On 5 March 2009 this court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal from a decision of Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan given on 30 November 2007 dismissing his appeal from Master Yu’s order given on 11 July 2007 striking out his claim in HCA1980/2006. The reasons for our order have been set out in the judgment handed down on 5 March 2009 and will not be repeated here. 2.The Plaintiff applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. On 7 April 2009 the Plaintiff applied for legal aid but the Director of Legal Aid refused his application on 30 June 2009. In a letter dated 10 July 2009 he asked to vacate the hearing of his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but that application was refused on paper. He renewed his application at the hearing on 17 July 2009. Having considered the Director’s decision to refuse legal aid, the fact that the Plaintiff has all along been dealing with this case personally and the questions referred to below, we did not see any good ground for an adjournment. 3.In a Notice of Motion filed on 2 April 2009, the Plaintiff set out 9 questions which he says are involved in the appeal and which by reason of their great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. The Notice of Motion is supported by the Plaintiff’s 9th affidavit which enclosed documents before the court at the hearing of the appeal. During the hearing before us, the Plaintiff also said he wished to add a reference to Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance cap. 383 to questions 6 and 8. 4.We have considered the 9 questions set out in the Notice of Motion and our views are as follows.
Order 5.The application is dismissed and since the Defendant had notified the court that he would not appear in the interests of saving costs, there will be no order as to costs.
The Plaintiff (Appellant) in person, present |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 401/2007