 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
These decisions are generally in the nature of case management decisions and
therefore are likely to be final in practice. However, since they will have involved
only one tier of adjudication, we do not consider it necessary to recommend that they
be made final by statutory provision or rule. Of course, any appeal would require
leave pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
and therefore a requirement to show that the question raised is one which, by reason of
its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court
for decision.
The proposal for release of embargoed judgments in advance to legal representatives
did not attract much comment. As footnoted above, it may be that the Law Society
(whose position was not made clear) was in fact against this proposal on the basis that
it does not favour a duty to keep matters confidential (even if only temporarily) from
the client.
Taking account of the responses received, it is the Working Party's view that the Court
of Appeal already has sufficient powers of case management. If it was thought
desirable to develop practices along the lines mentioned, appropriate additions to the
Practice Direction could subsequently be made. Accordingly, Proposal 48 should not
be adopted.
Subject to Recommendation 120 below, Proposal 48
(for introducing further case management provisions for appeals to the Court of
Appeal) should not be adopted in the form put forward.
Recommendation 120: Applications which are interlocutory to pending
appeals should be dealt with on paper by two Justices of Appeal, who should
have power to make any orders necessary without a hearing, giving brief
reasons for their decision; or, alternatively, to direct that there be a hearing
before themselves or before a panel of three judges (the last option being
dictated where the two judges are unable to agree).
|
 |
|