K 18.1. Requiring leave to appeal
530. |
The importance of
having an appeals procedure is universally recognized. Human frailties and the
vicissitudes of litigation contribute to an inevitable risk that justice may miscarry in
particular cases. The appellate jurisdiction exists to correct such errors. Appellate
courts also perform the essential function of setting precedents, resolving conflicting
lower court decisions and developing the law. (Note 465) |
|
|
| 531. |
Nonetheless, the
appellate process, may be abused, particularly by a party seeking to delay the trial by
launching appeals against interlocutory decisions of the CFI judge. This is a very real
danger in Hong Kong where, unlike other comparable systems, interlocutory appeals may be
lodged as of right and without any requirement for leave. (Note 466) As mentioned above, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal
has accorded primacy to the case management decisions of the first instance judge and
repeatedly stated that it will not interfere with his exercise of discretion in the
absence of error. (Note 467) However, this has not prevented interlocutory appeals
from being brought, often at considerable expense. As Appendix B, Table 30 indicates, of
the 13 taxed bills for interlocutory appeals to the Court of Appeal studied, the lowest
amount of costs claimed was $127,600, the highest $801,500 and the median $189,500. |
|
|
| 532. |
A requirement of leave
to appeal filters out unmeritorious appeals and protects parties from abusive use of
appeals and unnecessary costs. (Note 468) Readers are accordingly consulted as to whether rules
importing such a requirement in respect of interlocutory appeals, should be adopted: Proposal
42. |
|
|
| 533. |
Reforms elsewhere have
gone further. In his Final Report, Lord Woolf recommended :- |
|
|
