TSE JEEKEEN v. HK ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA & ITS CHAIRMAN SZETO WAH AND OTHERS

CACV000103A/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

1998, No. 103
(Civil)

BETWEEN
TSE JEEKEEN Plaintiff/
Applicant
AND
HK ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PATRIOTIC MOVEMENT OF CHINA & ITS CHAIRMAN SZETO WAH & 3 OTHERS Defendants/
Respondents

————————————-

Coram: Hon Nazareth, V.-P., Leong and Rogers, JJ.A. in Court

Date of Hearing: 10 September 1998

Date of Judgment: 10 September 1998

———————-

J U D G M E N T

———————-

Nazareth, V.-P. (giving the decision of the Court) :

1. The applicant, Mr Tse Jeekeen, seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal of his appeal to this Courton 15 July 1998. In that short judgment, the nature of his appeal and our reasons were very clearly given. Plainly, there is no questionof leave to appeal as of right under s.22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The application has therefore to be considered under s.22(1)(b) which provides for leave at the discretion of this Court from any judgment of this Court, whether final or interlocutory, if, inthe opinion of this Court, the question involved in the appeal is one which by reason of its great general or public importance,or otherwise, ought to be submitted for decision.

2. Mr Tse Jeekeen has, in fact, not really indicated any question for the consideration of the Court of Final Appeal. He merely saysthat his action which concerns certain political parties in Hong Kong and the American Government and the Government of the People’sRepublic of China, is one that should be aired. That does not provide any question that should be referred to the Court of FinalAppeal. We have looked at his reasons which he has given us in writing in one page of closely typed typescript. These we find tobe the same as those advanced to us at the hearing of the appeal. From this also we are not able to discern any question that wouldwarrant leave or indeed that would qualify for leave under s.22(1)(b).

3. Accordingly we refuse leave.

(G.P. Nazareth) (Arthur Leong) (Anthony Rogers)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant in person

Mr Christopher Lam (M/s Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners) for the Respondents