 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
Proposal 43
All appeals from the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeal (and not merely
interlocutory appeals as proposed in Proposal 42) should be subject to a requirement of
leave.
Interim Report paras 533-534
22.2
A leave requirement for final appeals
There was significant opposition
to the introduction of a requirement for leave to
appeal in relation to final appeals. Several, including the Bar Association, argued that
the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal is a necessary safeguard against judicial
fallibility and the vicissitudes of litigation. One respondent, made the point that an
incompetent appeal or one which is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process
could be struck out in the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.
The Working Party considers it a desirable safeguard that a party should have at least
one opportunity to appeal an adverse final judgment as of right to a higher court.
Recommendation 114: Proposal 43 (for introducing a requirement for leave to
appeal against a final judgment of the CFI) should not be adopted.
Notes
From, among others, the Bar Association, the BSCPI, the Law Society and a set of barristers'
chambers.
HKCP 2002, 59/3/6.
|
 |
|