Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 99/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 99OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM FCMC NO. 5263 of 2012)

________________________

BETWEEN
	QY	Applicant
	AND
	YY	Respondent

________________________

Before : Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions : 26 January 2015

Date of Judgment : 16 February 2015

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This is an application for extension of time for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Ivan Wong of the Family Court.

2.The applicant has not made any application to the judge below for leave. There is no explanation why this was not done.

3.As explained in Kiddie China Ltd v Etech Fire Ltd HCMP 1673 of 2014, 16 September 2014, unlike the position in the High Court, the District Court has power to extend time for leave to appeal. The Family Court is part of the District Court.

4.According to the approach set out in that case, Singh Arjun v Secretary for Justice [2014] 2 HKLRD 678 and Jenho Development Ltd v Tse Tung Hoi HCMP 277 of 2013, 25 March 2013, this court will not entertain an application of this sort when an application has not been made to the court below in the absence of good justification as we do not have the benefit of the views of the lower court on extension of time and the merits of the intended grounds of appeal.

5.This is particularly so when, as in the present case, the complaint was about the lack of opportunity to deal with an important aspect of the case at hearing below.

6.We therefore dismiss the application without prejudice to the applicant’s application (if so advised) to the court below for leave.