CHAN WAI HONG v. THE REVISING OFFICER, MR SYMON WONG

CACV 34/2013 &
CACV 169/2013
(Heard together)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 34 AND 169 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 105 OF 2011)

________________________

________________________

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

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

1.  We handed down our judgment on 30 August 2013 dismissing the appeal by the 3^rd and 53^rd Interested Parties. On 5 November 2013, solicitors for the 3^rd Interested Party and solicitors for the 53^rd Interested Party filed their respective Applications for Leave to Appeal seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.

2.  Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, application for leave to appeal should be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.   The applications were therefore made substantially out of time.   Though there is power to extend time, the Interested Parties had not made any applications for extension of time and they had not explained for the delay in their applications.   Given the length of the delay and the lack of substantive merits in the contentions of the Interested Parties, we do not deem it right to grant any extension of time to the Interested Parties when they did not even bother to apply for the same and offered no explanation for the delay. 

3.  The Applications for Leave to Appeal of both the 3^rd and 53^rd Interested Parties were settled by the same counsel and the same grounds were relied upon.   In those documents, 4 questions were advanced which counsel contends ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision because of their great general or public importance.  Another 3 questions were advanced to support an application on the otherwise limb under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

4.  In accordance with a practice adopted by this court, enquiry was made with the parties as regards the disposal of the Applications on papers.  The parties through their solicitors wrote to the court indicating their agreement to have the applications dealt with by way of paper disposal.  Directions were given for the lodging of written submissions and they were filed accordingly. 

5.  The questions set out in the Applications are prolix and verbose.  We are not going to set them out in this judgment.  It suffices to say in respect of the first 4 questions, they are all revolved around the specific factual matrix in the present case and none of them raises any point of law or facts of great general or public importance.  Also, we do not regard those 4 questions as reasonably arguable.  Question 4 is in fact a complete misunderstanding of the effect of the judgments of this court and the court below.   

6.  As regards the other 3 questions, we fail to see how they could give rise to leave being granted on the “otherwise limb” which is only applicable in exceptional cases.  There is no exceptional feature in the present case.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant any extension of time and the applications are dismissed.  The 3^rd and 53^rd Interested Parties shall pay the costs of the Applicant in their respective application, such costs are to be taxed if not agreed.