CHAN CHAW MAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

CACV000175/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 175
(Civil)

BETWEEN
	CHAN CHAW MAN	Applicant
	AND
	DIRECTOR OF LANDS	Respondent

-------------------------------------

Coram: Hon Nazareth, V.-P., Bokhary and Liu, JJ.A.

Date of Hearing: 26 September 1996

Date of Judgment: 26 September 1996

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

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

1. This is an application by the respondent to strike out the Notice of Appeal by which the applicant seeks to have the order of the Lands Tribunal determining the compensation for the resumption of his land varied from an amount of $5 million odd to $12 million odd.

2. Under s.11(2) of the Lands Tribunal Ordinance Cap. 17, such an appeal can only be made on the ground that the determination or order is erroneous in point of law.

3. Moreover, O60A r2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court requires such a notice of appeal to specify the grounds of appeal together with the question of law to be decided.

4. The Notice of Appeal in this case is in the usual proforma and where it provides for the grounds of appeal to be specified, what has been inserted is this: "Please see attached". What is attached are the reasons for the decision of the Lands Tribunal on review. Not one single ground is given. Nor is any question of law specified.

5. On 9th September after that Notice was lodged, the respondent's legal advisers wrote to the applicant, pointing out that an appeal could only be made on a point of law and asking him to furnish them with the question of law. No response was received.

6. This Court has repeatedly held that it has the power to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal does not lie. (See Ng Shek-po & Wong Wai-ching v. Director of Lands, Civ App No. 39 of 1996, following Aviagents Ltd v. Balstravest Investments Limited [1966] 1 All ER 450 and Burgess v. Stafford Hotel Limited [1990]3 All ER 222.) Clearly, here an appeal does not lie, for no grounds have been specified nor any question of law. Moreover, the applicant himself has not appeared and has sent a representative. In all the circumstances we see no alternative but to grant the application and strike out the Notice of Appeal.

7. We would add that this Court has been receiving applications to strike out a succession of notices of appeal filed without specifying any real grounds or any questions of law. It is time that those who waste the taxpayers' money and the time of the courts in filing and pursuing such Notices of Appeal are made to pay at least a part of the costs.

8. The application is granted and the Notice of Appeal struck out.

(G.P. Nazareth)	(K. Bokhary)	(B. Liu)
Vice President	Justice of Appeal	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Applicant represented by Mr Tsui Tan-fai

Mr Raymond Tam (AGC) for Respondent