Ho Kang Yau v. Ho Chun Wing

Read the full judgment text of CACV 42/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 November 2011.

1. This is the defendant’s application for leave to appeal against our judgment of 24 May 2011.

Cited by 6 cases · Cites 2 cases

Case No.CACV 42/2011
Court
Court of Appeal
Date11 Nov 2011
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 42/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 5195 OF 2008)

________________________

BETWEEN

HO KANG YAU Plaintiff
and
HO CHUN WING Defendant

Before : Hon Yeung VP, Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of Hearing : 11 November 2011

Date of Decision : 11 November 2011

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is the defendant’s application for leave to appeal against our judgment of 24 May 2011.

2.The defendant had lodged an improperly constituted appeal against a District Court judgment because he had not obtained leave to appeal.  This Court considered that leave to appeal was required and proceeded to consider whether leave should be granted or not.  We decided that leave should not be granted and proceeded to strike out the notice of appeal.

3.The position is now governed by section 63B of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336), namely,

‘ No appeal lies from a decision of the Court of Appeal as to whether or not leave to appeal to it should be granted.’

4.Section 63B affirms and extends the common law position that the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant leave to appeal against a lower Court decision does not constitute a judgment for the purpose of an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal : see HLF v MTC [2004] 3 HKLRD 241.  This Court in Hong Kong Housing Society and Another v. Wong Nai Chung trading as Sun Chung Flower Shop (HCMP 880/2009) was of the view that section 63B satisfies the proportionality test and does not infringe the Court of Final Appeal’s power of final adjudication under Article 82 of the Basic Law.

5.Since our judgment is a final judgment with no further right to appeal, we will dismiss the application with costs to the plaintiff.

(Wally Yeung) (Peter Cheung) (Maria Yuen)
Vice-President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal


Mr. Vincent Lam, instructed by Messrs Donald Yap, Cheng & Kong, for the Plaintiff

Defendant : in person, present