 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Section 22:
Leave to appeal
Proposal 42
A requirement that interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal be brought only with leave
of the Court of First Instance or the Court of Appeal should be introduced.
22.1
Leave requirement for interlocutory appeals
As the Interim Report pointed out, where there is satellite litigation on interlocutory
issues (which are often of only marginal significance to the outcome of the litigation)
major delay and expense is likely to be incurred. This was generally acknowledged in
the consultation exercise and virtually all those responding supported the proposal to
introduce a requirement for leave to appeal in respect of interlocutory appeals.
This
was not a radical suggestion since many jurisdictions, including England and Wales
prior to adoption of the Woolf reforms, have for many years made interlocutory
appeals subject to the grant of leave.
However, certain reservations were expressed. It was said, for instance, that judges
would have to strive to achieve consistency in deciding whether to grant leave to
appeal or else there would be dissatisfaction. A number of respondents also argued for
an initially liberal approach to the granting of leave since it would take time for the
proposed reforms to bed down. Indeed, some respondents suggested, for the same
reason, that the introduction of the requirement for leave to appeal should be deferred
until some time after introduction of the reforms. Another important concern was that
the leave requirement should not cause costs to increase by introducing the need to
have court hearings on leave applications.
Notes
Supporters included the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society, the LAD, the APAA, the
HKMLA, the High Court masters, the JCGWG, the BCC, one set of barristers' chambers, two firms
of solicitors and an individual respondent.
|
 |
|