FAMV No. 9 of 2000
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 9 OF 2000 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM CACV NO. 339 OF 1999)
Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Mr Justice Silke NPJ
Date of Hearing: 27 June 2000
Date of Determination: 27 June 2000
D E T E R M I N A T I O N
Mr Justice Bokhary PJ:
1. We will refer to the applicant as “the landowner” and to the respondent as “the Secretary”. The Secretary is empowered by s.15 of the Land Development Corporation Ordinance, Cap. 15, to recommend to the Chief Executive in Council the resumption of land under the Lands Resumption Ordinance, Cap. 124. The Secretary decided to so recommend such resumption of the landowner’s land at 19 Cross St in Wanchai. On 6 October1999 the landowner was informed of that decision. And on 8 November 1999 she took out an application for leave to apply for judicialreview thereof.
2. On 15 November 1999, for the reasons which he gave in writing on the following day, Cheung J refused such leave.
3. On 11 January 2000 the Court of Appeal (Keith JA and Ribeiro J) handed down a judgment affirming the judge’s refusal of leave toapply for judicial review. On 3 March 2000 the Court of Appeal refused the landowner leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. The landowner now seeks this Committee’s leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
5. In the Court of Appeal Keith JA decided against the landowner on one ground. Ribeiro J agreed with Keith JA on that ground and, inaddition, decided against the landowner on two other grounds.
6. This is how Keith JA stated the ground on which he and Ribeiro J were agreed:
7. In stating the two grounds upon which he proceeded on his own, Ribeiro J said that the first was that:
8. Secondly, Ribeiro J said that:
9. Unless the Court of Final Appeal were to take a different view on all three of these grounds, an appeal to the Court would fail.
We see no reasonable prospect of the Court of Final Appeal taking a different view on any of those grounds let alone all three ofthem.
10. Leave to appeal is refused.
Applicant in person