The Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong also known as The Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Hong Kong Incorporation v. Secretary for Justice
Read the full judgment text of CACV 18/2007 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 June 2010.
1. This is an application under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 for leave to appeal from the judgment of this Court handed down on 3 February 2010 whereby the court had dismissed the appeal from a judgment of Andrew Cheung J in a judicial review which challenged the constitutionality of the Education Amendment Ordinance (2004).
Cited by 3 cases
|
CACV 18/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2007 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 157 OF 2005) ----------------------
---------------------- Before: Hon Stock VP, Yeung JA and Hartmann JA in Court Dates of Hearing: 3 June 2010 Date of Judgment: 3 June 2010 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Hon Stock VP (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.This is an application under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 for leave to appeal from the judgment of this Court handed down on 3 February 2010 whereby the court had dismissed the appeal from a judgment of Andrew Cheung J in a judicial review which challenged the constitutionality of the Education Amendment Ordinance (2004). 2.The notice of motion asks us to grant leave on the basis of a number of questions which are said to be involved in the appeal and to be of great general public importance and which ought for that reason to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination. 3.The questions adumbrated in the notice of motion have today been replaced by a single suggested question in these terms:
4.It is in an application of this kind inappropriate for us to repeat the reasoning in the judgment of 3 February 2010. It suffices to say that we consider that, adopting a contextually purposive approach, the answers are palpably clear. 5.Accordingly, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon us by the statutory provision, we decline to grant leave. 6.The applicant shall pay the costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Mr Martin Lee, SC, Mr Erik Shum and Mr Hectar Pun, instructed by Messrs Wong, Hui & Co., for the Applicant Mr Sanjay A Sakhrani instructed by Department of Justice, for the Respondent Leave to appeal granted to the applicant by Court of Final Appeal. Please refer to FAMV19/2010 dated 13 December 2010 |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 18/2007