|
CACV 363/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2008
(ON APPEAL FROM DCTC NO. 8279 OF 2007)
________________________
BETWEEN
| |
THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
TAM, KIN CHUNG |
Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court
Date of Hearing: 30 March 2010
Date of Judgment: 30 March 2010
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and it requires an extension of time. I should state at the outset that the application is that issues of great general or public importance are involved. The case involves what this Court held was a penalty which was imposed for non-payment of tax. The penalty was $10,271 with interest.
2. This Court dismissed the appeal at the hearing and it was perfectly clear at the hearing, which was on 20 November 2009, as to what was involved. The issue was quite simple, as the reasons for judgment which were handed down on 2 December made quite clear.
3. The first point is that the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was made late. The reason for the lateness is put on the basis that the solicitor involved thought that time ran from the date of the provision of the reasons. That was clearly wrong. It runs from the date when the judgment was given.
4. In my view, there is no reason why, if an application was going to be made to go to the Court of Final Appeal, preparations should not have been put in hand immediately that the judgment was given. There was no need to wait for the reasons. When the reasons came, the papers could have been perfected, if necessary.
5. That said, in my view, there is no ground for granting an extension of time in this case. Even if there were, this case, in my view, has absolutely no merit at all. The judgment of this Court is clear and all that is sought on this application is to rehash the same old arguments again in the Court of Final Appeal. This is simply not a case which this Court could burden the Court of Final Appeal with. For these reasons, these applications should be dismissed.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
6. I agree.
Hon Stone J:
7. I also agree.
|
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President
|
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal
|
(William Stone)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
|
Mr Paul H M Leung, instructed by Department of Justice, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Mr Robert Tibbo, instructed by Messrs Philip K Y Lee & Co., for the Defendant/Applicant
|