Re Mahesh J Roy

Judgment Date11 April 2017
Year2017
Citation[2017] 2 HKLRD 935
Judgement NumberCACV226/2015
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV226/2015 RE MAHESH J ROY

CACV 226/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 226 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM LBTC NO 2189 of 2015)

_______________________

IN RE: MAHESH J ROY

INTERVENER: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

_______________________

Before: Hon Cheung CJHC and Lam VP in Court

Date of Decision: 14 March 2017

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision: 11 April 2017

_________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_________________________________


Hon Lam VP (giving the Reasons for Decision of the Court):

1. On 14 March 2017, at the invitation of the parties we made an order regarding the title of this appeal and the parties to it. It is an appeal against a summary decision by a presiding officer of the Labour Tribunal holding a person present in court (who was not a party to the proceedings) guilty of insulting behaviour and sentencing him to a fine of $5,000. As there is apparently no reported case in Hong Kong as to how the appeal should be intituled and who should be joined as respondent to such appeal, we decided to give reasons for making the order for future guidance.

2. The proceedings below were proceedings in the Labour Tribunal. The appellant was a person assisting the claimant in LBTC 2189 of 2015. At a hearing of the proceedings on 19 August 2015, the Presiding Officer found him to be guilty of insulting behaviour under Section 42 of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance Cap 25. After hearing his counsel and the appellant on 27 August 2015, the Presiding Officer imposed a fine of $5,000.

3. The appellant, acting in person, issued a Notice of Appeal on 24 September 2015 naming the Presiding Officer as respondent in the appeal. The Notice of Appeal was served on the Presiding Officer at the Labour Tribunal on 24 September 2015.

4. On 25 May 2016, a Government Counsel filed a Notice to Act giving notice the Secretary for Justice had been appointed to act for the Presiding Officer.

5. On 26 May 2016, the Government Counsel wrote to the Court stating that the Presiding Officer shall remain neutral in the appeal and asked to be excused from the hearing.

6. On 27 May 2016, the Secretary for Justice in his own capacity through another Government Counsel wrote to the court seeking to intervene to represent public interest and defend the due administration of justice in light of the consideration that the decision in question was in the nature of contempt of court.

7. Afterwards, legal aid was granted to the appellant. Mr McCoy SC was assigned to act as his counsel. On 29 September 2016, Mr McCoy filed a memorandum with the Court acknowledging that it was not correct to name the presiding officer as the respondent. Instead, he proposed to name the respondent in the Labour Tribunal proceedings as respondent to this appeal.

8. No order had been made by the Court regarding the identity of the proper party in the appeal. In January 2017, pursuant to listing directions of a master, the parties fixed a date for the hearing of the appeal. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 22 September 2017.

9. On 15 February 2017, the parties filed a Consent Summons seeking an order that the Presiding Officer cease to be a party to the appeal. In a joint letter of 15 February 2017, solicitors for the Appellant informed the Court that parties could not reach agreement on the identity of proper respondent to the appeal. They sought directions from the Court.

10....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sun Min And Others v Chu Kong
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 6 Diciembre 2022
    ...descriptions, apparently regarding them as complementary. The Court of Appeal in Re Mahesh J Roy (Intervener: Secretary for Justice) [2017] 2 HKLRD 935 at para 17 favoured the view of Lord Diplock and Lord Morris over that of Lord Cross. In so far as there is a difference, it seems to be mo......
  • Sun Min And Others v Mr Chu Kong
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 6 Diciembre 2022
    ...descriptions, apparently regarding them as complementary. The Court of Appeal in Re Mahesh J Roy (Intervener: Secretary for Justice) [2017] 2 HKLRD 935 at para 17 favoured the view of Lord Diplock and Lord Morris over that of Lord Cross. In so far as there is a difference, it seems to be mo......
  • Re Mahesh J Roy
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 10 Noviembre 2017
    ...explained in the earlier judgment of this Court in this appeal, the Secretary for Justice was joined as intervenor, see Re Mahesh J Roy [2017] 2 HKLRD 935. Mr Wong SC and Ms Cheng appeared on behalf of the Secretary for Justice. Mr Wong’s team was mindful of the role of the Secretary for Ju......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT