GOOD MARK INDUSTRIAL LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

CACV 90/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2014

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 88 OF 2012)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving Decision of the Court) :

1.  The applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment of 3 February 2015.

2.  In its ‘Application for leave to appeal’, the applicant set out four grounds of appeal and claimed at the end of each ground that it ‘involves a point of great general or public importance or otherwise for the Court of Final Appeal to determine’.  Contrary to the well-established practice in this area, the applicant has not formulated in a succinct way the precise points which are said to be of great general or public importance.

3.  In the Grounds of Appeal, the applicant discussed ground 1 by reference to ‘ultra vires’, ground 2 by reference to ‘constitutionality’, ground 3 by reference to ‘presumption against absurdity’.  As to ground 4 the applicant claimed the Court’s construction of the relevant section has the consequence that ‘the genuine rule of law in Hong Kong is likely to be adversely affected’.  The applicant asked for leave to file additional documents in support of its application, as all or some of these documents had not been previously produced in the proceedings.

4.  We will not grant leave to adduce the new evidence which had not been produced before.  None of the four grounds had been raised in the Form 86 nor canvassed in arguments before us.  This being the case the Court is not prepared to grant leave on these grounds that are raised for the first time after the appeal.  As such we will refrain from commenting upon the merits of these new grounds.

5.  Accordingly the application is dismissed with costs to the respondent.